Patriots of the U.S.A.
and the

compiled by

Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721

copyright c. 2013

Version 28
(May 1, 2013)
(draft version)

    On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the President of the United States of America, and the United States of America ended up with a man as president who dislikes the structure of the United States of America, particularly The U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence, who dislikes business people, such as executives of banks and automobile companies, who dislikes the individuals of the country, and who dislikes many more things about the country, and evidence of this can be found in a number of the documents that are posted at the Web site for The Hologlobe Press, such as Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama and Madness in a President and Other Matters of a Defective Mind.  People are speaking up against Barack Obama, who is a follower of communism and socialism and dictatorship ideas, and the persons speaking out can be called "patriots" and more, maybe even heroes.  This document presents some of the examples of patriots, who are fighting for freedom and liberty for the individual.

    On July 16, 1964, Barry Goldwater was at the Republican National Convention, and he gave his acceptance speech as the nominee for U.S. President, and here are parts of the speech:
    "...Now my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom.  Our people have followed false prophets.  We must and we shall return to proven ways--not because they are old--but because they are true.  We must and we shall set the tides running again in the cause of freedom.  And this Party [the Republican Party] with its every action, every word, every breathe, and every heartbeat has but a single resolve, and that is freedom--freedom made orderly for this nation by our constitutional government, freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God...."
    "...Now, we Americans understand freedom.  We have earned it.  We have lived for it.  And we have died for it.  This nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world...."
    "...During four futile years, the administration which we shall replace has, has distorted and lost that vision.  It has talked and talked and talked the words of freedom, but it has failed and failed and failed in the works of freedom...."
    "...Now, we Republicans see all this as more, much more than the result of mere political differences or mere political mistakes.  We see this as the result of a fundamental and absolutely wrong view of man, his nature, and his destiny.  Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of Ga, God as the author of freedom.  Now, those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on Earth.  They--and let me remind you--they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.  Absolute power does corrupt!  And those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed...."
    "...Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power--private or public--which, which enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism.  It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people...."

    On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan made a speech--a televised campaign address-focusing on promoting Barry Goldwater for U.S. President:
    "...We cannot buy our security--our freedom from the threat of bomb--by committing a morality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, 'Give up your dreams of freedom, because, to save our own skins, we are willing to make a deal with you slave masters.'  Alexander Hamilton said, 'A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one.  Now, let's set the record straight.  There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second--surrender!...."
    "...Senator Clark of Pennsylvania [Joseph Sill Clark, Jr.], another articulate spokesman, defines 'liberalism' as 'meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.'  Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free men and women of this country--as 'the masses.'  This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America.  But beyond that, 'the full power centralized government', this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize.  They knew that governments don't control things.  A government can't control the economy without controlling people, and they know, when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.  They also knew--those Founding Fathers--that, outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy...."

    From January 1981 to January 1989, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States of America, and during his time as President of the United States of American and at other times of his life, Ronald Reagan showed he was a patriot, a "conservative" and a defender of liberty for every man and every woman.
    In 1961, Ronald Reagan had I wish to share with you in text form. The first statement is: "...One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way on medicine.  It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project.  Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.  Now, the American people--if you put to them about socialized medical and gave them a chance to choose--would unhesitatingly vote against it.  We have an example of this--under the Truman [U.S. President Harry S. Truman], it was proposed that we have a compulsory health-insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this...."  Ronald Reagan also had this statement: "...Now in our country, under our free-enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country of the world.  Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied anyplace--the privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to choose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.  But let's also look from the other side--at the freedom the doctor loses.   A doctor would be reluctant to say this.  Well, like you, I'm only a patient, so I can say it on his behalf.  The doctor begins to lose freedoms.  It's like telling a lie, and one leads to another.  First, you decide that the doctor can have so many patients--they're equally divided among the various doctors by the government--but then the doctors aren't equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has to say to him, 'You can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors--you have to go someplace else.'  And from here, it's only a short step to dictating where he will go.  This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.  I know how'd I feel if you, my fellow citizens, decided--to be an actor, I had to become a government employee and work in national theatre.  Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband.  All of us can see what happens once you established the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods--determine his employment--from here, it is a short step to all the rest of socialism--to determining his pay.  And pretty soon, your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go, or what he will do for a living, he will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do...."  And Ronald Reagan had this thought, too: "...What can we do about this?  Well, you and I can do a great deal.  We can write to our congressmen, to our senators.  We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms, and, at the moment, the key issue is--we do not want socialized medicine.  In Washington [D.C.] today, forty-thousand letters, less than a hundred per congressman, are evidence of a trend in public thinking.  Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, 'When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.'  So write.  And if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services, and so forth that must be performed by government, don't let him get away with it--show that you have not been convinced of it.  Write a letter right back, and tell him you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you that know governments don't tax to get the money they need--governments will always find a need for the money they get--and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free-enterprise system.  You and I can do this.  The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressman, even if we believe that he's on our side to begin with, write to strengthen his hand.  Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say, 'I have heard from my constituents, and this is what they want.  Write those letters now!  Call your friends and tell them to write them.  If you don't, this program--I promise you--will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow.  And behind it will come other federal-government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until one day, as Norman Thomas said,  'We will awake to find we have socialism.'  And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free...."
    On January 26, 1982, before a joint session of the United States Congress, Ronald Reagan noted in his State of the Union Address, "...Some will say our mission is to save free enterprise.  But I say, 'We must free enterprise so that together we can save America.'...."
    Ronald Reagan appeared at the Knoxville International Energy Exposition in Knoxville, Tennessee, on May 1, 1982, and here is one piece of the speech that he made there: "...Our economic and energy problems were in large part caused by government excesses and quick fixes, not by a basic scarcity of supply.  Our principles have not failed us.  Too many times, we have failed to live up to our principles...."
    On June 6, 1984, which was the 40th Anniversary of D-Day (or the Normany invasion), Ronald Reagan said, "...When these troops swept across the French countryside and into the forests of Belgium and Luxembourg, they came not to take but to return what had been wrongly ceased.  When our forces marched into Germany, they came not to prey on a brave and defeated people, but to nurture the seeds of democracy among those yearned to be free again...."
    On April 14, 1986, in relation to the air strike by the U.S. against Libya, Ronald Reagan said, "...Europeans who remember history understand better than most that there is no security, no safety in the appeasement of evil.  It must be the core of Western policy that there be no sanctuary for terror, and to sustain such a policy, free men and free nations must unite and work together...."
    In April 1987, Ronald Reagan said, "...I said that American medicine is the best in the world.  On that, we need no second opinions, because there are no other opinions.  Our competitive system has produced the finest health care in history, and with each year that passes, it saves more lives, finds cures to more diseases, makes life better for more people than ever before...."

    It was on Thursday, February 19, 2009, that Rick Santelli (who had experience in investing, who was at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and who was shown on camera) made these statements and others on a television show entitled Squawk Box, which was shown on CNBC):
    "...I've been glued to it, because Mr. Ross' nailed it. You know, the government is promoting bad behavior because we certainly don't want to put stimulus forth and give people a whooping eight or ten dollars in their check and think that they ought to save it.  And in terms of modifications, I'll tell you what, I have an idea, you know the, the new administrations' big on computers and technology--How 'bout this, president and new administration, why don't you put up a Web site, have people vote on the Internet as a referendum, to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road and reward people that can carry the water, instead of drink the water?...."
    "...This is America!  How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?  Raise their hands!...."
    "....President Obama, are you listening?...."

    On Thursday, May 21, 2009, Barack Obama made statements about Guantanamo Bay and water boarding and related matters, and, on the same day, former Vice President Dick Cheney (a Republican or, really, a "conservative," who served as Vice President with U.S. President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009, and some of the statements made by Dick Cheney are presented in this section, and you should see how Dick Cheney defended the country, unlike Barack Obama (statements from whom exist in Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama):
    "...Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the terrorist surveillance program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between Al-Qaeda and persons inside the United States.  The program was top secret and for good reason, until the editors of The New York Times got it and put it on the front page.  After 9/11, The Times [The New York Times] had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of every single individual killed by Al-Qaeda on 9/11.  Now, here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help Al-Qaeda.  It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country or the safety of our people...."
    "...But somehow when the sole searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less that half the truth.  The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted apparently were not even considered for release.  For reasons the administration [the Barack Obama administration] has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions but not content of the answers...."  [This material is related to the release by the Barack Obama administration of classified memoranda related to terrorists and water boarding at Guantanamo Bay during the time of U.S. President George W. Bush.]
    "...You've heard endlessly about water boarding that happened to three terrorists.  One of them was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Omaha, the mastermind of 9/11, who's also boasted about his beheading of Daniel Pearl  [who was journalist killed in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2002].  We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about Al-Qaeda.  We didn't know about Al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know, and with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they had to do at all...."

    It was on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (a Republican of the 6th District of Minnesota) made this statement to the public:
    "...I thank the gentleman from Missouri, and I'm very concerned again about these motor takeovers from the federal government.  One thing that I'm very concerned about--a story came out today where, ah, there's been approximately fifteen-hundred letters, I believe, that have gone out to GM dealerships.  One story that came out today--there's a dealership that I know of that applied to their Democrat senator to appeal for help so they could stay open.  That senator was able to arrange a meeting between the dealer and the officials at GM.  We all know GM is now 'government motors' because it's owned by the American people.  It's been nationalized.  There's no private corporation the way we used to think of GM.  Now, the main stockholder's the American government, so this Democrat senator, who was applied to for help, was able to secure a meeting with General Motors and a car dealership, and they were able to get their dealership back.  Well, that's great, that's wonderful.  There's also another article I saw today, where, ah, a constituent had contacted one of the representatives--a Democrat representative--here in this chamber, Representative Barney Frank.. Barney Frank was able to go and talk to the right people and get this dealership back open.  Is that what we have come to in this country?  That rather than a private business with a private contract with another private corporation, they're no longer able to work out their agreements because as columnist Michael Barone has called--he said, 'Now we've looked into the realm of gangster government, we have gangster government when the federal government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their hopefully well-politically connected congressman or senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business.'  Is that the kind of country we're going to have in the future?  When I was on the phone today, for over an hour, with one of my local dealers, the very first thing out of her mouth was this--she said, 'This is the most un-American thing I have ever seen in my life.  I can't think that I lived to see the day that my country would come to this point, where having my dealership for ninety years, I get a letter Fed-Exed to me that tells me I have until Friday to sign this document--to not only give up my company that was made worthless--worth fifteen-million dollars--made worthless over night.'  Now GM is demanding that she hand over her customer list, her service customer list to GM.  Why?  GM most likely will use those customer lists, they'll give it to her former competitors.  What is she getting for this?  What's her remuneration?  She had the rug pulled out from her and from her husband.  They've virtually lost everything over night.  To what?  To what Michael Barone calls 'a gangster government.'  We need to call this for what this is, my colleague. We need to call this for what this is, call it out.  The American people need to get outraged and figure out that it could be them next.  No business is safe when you see the administation appoint czars--car czars, wage czars, there's over twenty czars that have been appointed.  And what do those czars do?  They bypass the Congress.  We're the people's elected representatives.  We've been bypassed.  We now have an imperial presidency, where president has appointed various czars, appointing directly to him and now he's reaching into the confines of private businesses and over night rendering them virtually worthless--unless, unless they've a special tug, a politically tie, to a local Democrat congressman.  Is that what we've come to?...."
    Incidentally, it would be Michele Bachmann who would be instrumental in setting up a tea-party-like event at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, November 5, 2009, in which the theme would be to persuade the members of the U.S. House of Representatives not to vote "yes" for a health-care bill--a monstrous 2,790 pages of socialistic themes--that would be put to a vote on Friday, November 6, 2009, and what she would do is send out the call, as if she were a Paulette Revere, to every American--show up with a video camera, try to talk with the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and work to keep America free for the individual.
    Note: To learn more about Michele Bachmann's fight against Barack Obama, you are urged to see "Special Note #76" in my document entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached by using this link: Health.

    On Thursday, July 16, 2009, Harry C. Alford, who is the CEO/President of the Black Chamber of Commerce, had to speak with U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (a Democrat related to California) in a hearing, and here is an exchange of words between the two individuals, one of whom is garbage and one of whom is a businessman and a former member of the Army, who was testifying against the "cap-and-trade" proposal (the Waxman-Markey Bill):
    Barbara Boxer: "Then we're going to put the NAACP resolution that passed saying that the NAACP pre, approved the historic resolution addressing climate-change legislation for the first time in the organization's history...."
    Harry C. Alford: "What does that mean?"
    Barbara Boxer: "Sir, we're gonna put that in the record, and you can read it, 'cause I don't have the time, but I'll read the....."
    Harry C. Alford: "What does that mean, though? I mean the NAACP has a resolution, what does that mean?"
    Barbara Boxer: "Sir, they can say the same about what do you mean.  I'm just telling you...."
    Harry C. Alford: "I've got documentation."
    Barbara Boxer: "Sir!  They passed it!  Now, also, if that isn't interesting to you, we'll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of a 100 Black Men of Atlanta.  Quote!  'Clean energy is the key that will unlock millions of jobs, and the NAACP's support is vital to ensuring that those help to rebuild urban areas.'  So clearly there's a diversity...."
    Harry C. Alford: "Ma'am Chair, that is condescending to me..."  [Barbara Boxer said a few words while he was talking, which I leave out.]  "I'm the national Black Chamber of Commerce, and you're trying to put up another black group..."
    Barbara Boxer: "If this gentleman...."
    Harry C. Alford: "...against me...."
    Barbara  Boxer: "If this gentleman, if this gentlemen, were here, he would be proud that he was being quoted...."
    Harry C. Alford: "He, he should've been invited."
    Barbara Boxer: "Just...he would be proud."
    Harry C. Alford: "It is condescending to me!"
    Barbara Boxer: "Just so you know, he would be proud that you were here.  He's proud, I'm sure...."
    Harry C. Alford: "Proud...."
    Barbara Boxer: "...that I am quoting him...."
    Harry C. Alford: "All that's condescending, and I don't like it!  It's racial!"
    Barbara Boxer: "What...."
    Harry C. Alford: "I don't like it!"
    Barbara Boxer: "Excuse...."
    Harry C. Alford: "....I, I take offense to it!"
    Barbara Boxer: "Okay."
    Harry C. Alford: "As an African-American, I am a Veteran of this country, I take offense to that!"
    Barbara Boxer: "Offense at the fact that I would quote...."
    Harry C. Alford: "...You quote some other black....Why don't you quote some other Asian or somebody...."
    Barbara Boxer: "No.  Well, let me...."
    Harry C. Alford: "...You are being racial, here!  And I think you're gettin' to a path here that's going to explode...."
    Barbara Boxer: "I'm going to respond right now.  I'm going to ask everyone to listen to what I said.  First, I placed in the record the Pew Charitable Trust Study, very important study for our state, our home state of California.  Then, I wanted to make a point that the fact is there's definitely differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my community...."
    Harry C. Alford: "You're speaking on behalf of the black community?"
    Barbara Boxer: "No.  I am putting in the record a statement by the NAACP...."
    Harry C. Alford: "Why?"
    Barbara Boxer: "  Because I think it is quite relevant.  I...."
    Harry C. Alford: "...understand, I understand the Pew...the Pew Study....  Why you doing the NAACP, why you doing the colored people association study with the Black Chamber of Commerce?"
    Barbara Boxer: "I am trying to show the diversity of support that...."
    Harry C. Alford: "Diversity?"
    Barbara Boxer: "...and I will go ahead and do one more diversity of support.  The oil companies, the oil companies--I think they're an important part of this conversation.  The oil companies are the ones who funded the very first CRA report that you support.  I think it's important to know...."
    Harry C. Alford: "I have no idea of it!"
    Barbara Boxer: "....I'm putting it in the record, sir!  Exxon-Mobil gave hundreds of thousands of dollars for that report, so I think it's important when we have a debate here that we look at the diversity of opinion and who agrees and disagrees."  [A man's voice said something, which I do not report here.]  "That's what I decided to do."
    Harry C. Alford: "Senator, senator, as I've said, we've being looking at energy policy since 1996, and we are referring to the experts--regardless of their color--and for someone to tell me, an African-American, college educated, veteran of the United States' Army that I must [a word missing because I did not understand it so that I could put it here] of some other black group and put aside everything else in here!  This has nothing to do with the NAACP!  And really has nothing to do with the Black Chamber of Commerce.  We're talkin' energy!  And that, that road the Chair went down, I think is God awful...."  [During the last few statements made by Mr. Alford, Barbara Boxer was saying something to someone else, and a listener could understand she was ignoring Mr. Alford.]
    Note: A few words are missing from the presentation, but you should understand the main idea easily enough.
    (You are urged to see T.H.A.T. #85, which has comments made by Harry Alford on the nationally distributed radio show called The Laura Ingraham Show on April 29, 2011, during which he said, for example, in relation to Barack Obama, "This guy's dangerous!"  The document can be reached by using this link: T.H.A.T. #85.)

    In early August 2007, it was publicly known what was in the health-care bill of the U.S. House of Representatives (which was HR 3200), and people were protesting much about the bill.  Even if the protesters did not know all the bad that was in the bill, protesters should have realized it was bad, bad, bad as a bill since Barack Obama, who is a liar and is unethical, was trying to push the bill through the U.S. Congress without making it clear to the public what was in the bill, and when a politician like Barack Obama sees it necessary to rush a bill--in this case a giant bill--into law without really having a bill that is designed to make lives better and fix problems in the health-care industry, a person should worry about the bill (the bill was designed as a drastic change to the country and was not designed to fix flaws in the health-care system, such as reduce the numerous lawsuits against doctors and the enormous lawsuit judgments that do get paid out).  On August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin, who was the most recent former governor of Alaska, posted several paragraphs of text as a public statement against the health-care bill, and here is the statement (which was entitled "Statement on the Current Health Care Debate"):

    As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!
    The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.  And who will suffer the most when they ration care?  The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.  The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of  health care.  Such a system is downright evil.
    Health care by definition involves life and death decisions.  Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.
    Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president's health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives.  I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
    We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate.  Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens.  If we go down this path, there will be no turning back.  Ronald Reagan once wrote, 'Government programs, once launched, never disappear.  Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.'  Let's stop and think and make our voices hear before it's too late.
    Here is a rule.  To fix problems with any system, you find out what the problems are as best you can and report what the problems are publicly (which Barack Obama has not been doing).  Then, you fix the problems--not change everything, especially, in the case of the health-care system in the United States of America, since the health-care system of the United States of America is the best in the world (though the federal government as managed Medicare and Medicaid horribly for decades).  (By the way, you should see my document entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached by using this link: Health.)

    On August 18, 2009, U.S. Congressman Brian Baird held a "town hall" meeting about the health-care legislation being pushed through the U.S. Congress in Clark County, Washington, when Brian Baird was on stage, a man, who was standing, made some comments, which were directed at Brian Baird, and here were statements made by the man: "...My name is David [David Hedrick], and I'm from Camas, Washington.  And, ah, first of all I want to let everyone know since this is the thing tonight that I'm a Marine Corps vet."  There was applause from the audience.  "And like you I did swear an oath to defend my Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."  There was more applause.  "Now, I heard you say tonight about educating our children, indoctrinating our children, whatever you want to call it."  Brian Baird made a comment.  "Stay away from my kids!"  There was much more applause.  "I also heard you say you're going to let us keep our health insurance.  Well, thank you!  It's not your right to decide whether or not I keep my current plan...."  There was much, much applause.  "I've heard recently the media, you, and some other people on the national political stage call us 'Brown Shirts' because we oppose...."  Brian Baird made a comment from the stage, and the audience reacted loudly against him.  "...Thanks for apologizing...remind you of a history lesson.  The Nazis did...Nazis were the National Socialist Party...They reflected...They took over the finances.  They took over the car industry.  They took over health care."  The audience was making a lot of noise, so some of David's speech could not be heard.  "Nancy Pelosi...."  The audience was really, really loud, basically cheering on David.  "What I want to know is...what I want to know is--As a Marine, as a disabled veteran, who served this country--I've kept my oath--do you ever intend to keep yours?"  The audience was once again very loud.  [Note: You should see I had to use three dots, which indicate missing text, several times since the audience drowned out David Hedrick.]

    Every Sunday, Fox TV airs a program called Fox News Sunday, which is hosted by Chris Wallace, and, on Sunday, August 30, 2009, a guest was Dick Cheney, the most-recent former Vice President on the United States of America, and some of the comments that Dick Cheney made were:
    "...Ah, I do.  I've always had the view that, dah, in recent years anyway that, dah, they didn't have a strong advocate on national defense or national security as they used to have, and, dah, I worry about it.  I think that things have gotten so partisian that, dah, the, ah, sort of, ah, pro-defense hawkish wing of the Democratic Party is defeated and isn't as strong as it once was...."  (The comment was the response to Chris Wallace's question: "Do you think the Democrats are soft on national security?")
    "...Well, ah, I wasn't a fan of his when he, he got elected, and, dah, my views haven't changed any.  I, ah, I have serious doubts about this policies, serious doubts especially about, dah, the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation...."  (This comment was the response to Chris Wallace's question: "Now, that he [Barack Obama] has been in office for seven months, what do you think of Barack Obama?")

    On Wednesday, September 9, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama (a Democrat) spoke before a joint session of the U.S. Congress so that he could push his health-care policies, and, during a portion of the event, which was broadcast nationally, such as on television stations around the country, U.S. Representative Joe Wilson (a Republican associated with South Carolina), was in the audience, and Joe Wilson showed himself to be a patriot by speaking out at one point in the speech being made by Barack Obama, though the speaking out might be seen as a little out of order.  (By the way, Joe Wilson is more formally known as Addison Wilson.)
    Barack Obama was speaking: "...Now, now there are also those who claim that reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants, this to is false!"  Some members of the audience made comments, which could not be understood by people listening to the speech, and that caused Barack Obama to stall a moment.  "The reforms, the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."  At this point, people who were paying attention to the speech, such as while a home, heard a voice from the audience yell out ":Lie!"  And members of the audience in the Chamber sort of erupted in various comments, making it hard for any one comment to be understood.
    What happened was, as would be learned later, U.S. Representative Joe Wilson yelled out the comment, knowing what the Barack Obama had said was a lie.
    After the speech was over, a number of events happened.  On television screens, viewers saw television newscasters or commentators made comments about the event, such as Charlie Gibson of ABC-TV, who said that he had never heard anybody yell out "lie" during a presidential speech.  And U.S. Representative Joe Wilson called the White House to express his regret for having made his statement.
    On Thursday, September 10, 2009, Vice President Joe Biden (a Democrat) made a comment about the event on Good Morning America during an interview with Diane Sawyer, who around the end of the year would replace Charlie Gibson as the main anchor of the weeknight newscast on ABC-TV, and this was what Joe Biden said, "I was embarrassed.  I was embarrassed for a Chamber and the Congress that I love.  I served there for thirty-six years, and I thought it demeaned the institution.  I thought it sent a signal to every young person out there that, dah, that was very, very damaging, but I know Joe.  He apologized.  Dah, I take him at his word that he got caught up in the emotion of the moment.  But the fact is that the assertion the president made is absolutely true!  It will not cover undocumented aliens!"
    By the way, on February 2, 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush (a Republican) made a State of the Union address before the U.S. Congress and the American public.  Here is how one portion of the speech went and what happened in the audience of the Chamber: "...By 2042, the entire system [Social Security system] would be exhausted and bankrupt.  If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive big borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs."  George W. Bush stopped speaking, because he got booed from members of the audience in the Chamber.  After the speech, reporters made comments about the "booing" event, such as Ted Koppel of ABC-TV, who said, "...When the president talked about the bankruptcy of Social Security, there were clearly some Democrats on the floor who thought that was taking it too far, and they did something that, dah--they booed."
    On Thursday, September 10, 2009, U.S. Representative Joe Wilson spoke to reporters.  One comment that he made was: "...They [Republican leadership] wanted me to contact the White House and state that my statements were inappropriate.  I did.  I'm very grateful, ah, that the White House in talking with them--they indicated that, ah, they appreciated the call and that we needed a civil discussion about the health-care issues, and I certainly agree with that, and so I'm, I'm happy to discussion the health-care issues and, in particular, the issue, which I think is very important, of whether the bills cover, would include illegal aliens or not...."  He also made this comment: "...There were two different amendments on the bill which would have provided for verification a person's, ah, having citizenship.  There were almost party-line votes.  Ah, on one of the amendments, several Democrats actually voted with us.  Also the Congressional Resource Services has indicated that indeed the bills that are before Congress would include illegal aliens.  And I think this is wrong!  We need to be discussion issues specifically to help the American people, and that would not include illegal aliens...."
    Also on Thursday, September 10, 2009,  U.S. Representative John Boehner (a Republican associated with Ohio) said, "...HR 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens participating in and paying for coverage available, ah, through the exchange, whether the non-citizens, ah, are legally or illegally present or in the United States temporarily or permanently, and this CRS report makes its pretty clear.  Secondly, ah, there were two opportunities in committee for House Democrats to make clear that illegal immigrants would not be covered by putting in the requirements, ah, to, to show citizenship.  Both of those amendments were in fact rejected...."
    Joe Wilson was right!  Barack Obama lied, but lying is the way of Barack Obama!  At least, Joe Wilson called Barack Obama out publicly as a patriot should when the country is a stake!

    On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (a Republican associated with Kentucky) made a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and here is most of the speech in text form: "...Mr. President [of the Chamber and not the U.S. President], I rise to call my colleagues attention to a truly disturbing development in the health-care debate.  A colleague of ours, a colleague of ours has called for an investigation into a major health-care company, because this company informed its customers of its concerns about health-care legislation that this colleague of ours introduced.  Let me say that again.  A colleague of ours has called for an investigation of a major health-care company, because this company disagreed with a bill our colleague introduced. As a result, the federal government has now told all companies that provide Medicare Advantage to stop communicating with their clients about the effects of that legislation.  Let me say that again.  The federal government has now told these companies to stop communicating with their clients about the effects of a piece of legislation that's before us, even telling them what they can and cannnot post on their Web sits.  This gag order, enforced through an agency of the federal government at the request of a Senator, is wrong.  It started when a company based in my home town of Louisville, Kentucky, Humana [Humana Inc.] had the temerity, Mr. President, the temerity in the eyes of some of our colleagues to explain to its customers that, if Medicare Advantage is cut--as the Chairman's mark requires--it may reduce benefits, which, of course, is a commonsense conclusion.  Now, Mr. President, this is America, the United States of America.  Citizens, either as individuals or grouped together in companies, have a fundamental right, a fundamental right to talk about legislation they favor or oppose in this country.  This is the core of the First Amendment's protections of speech.  Unfortunately, this is part of troubling trend of efforts to dismiss the concerns raised by the American people over the last few months.  Over the summer, we saw American citizens who raised concerns about the health-care proposals before Congress dismissed, utterly dismissed as somehow un-American by leaders here in Congress.  That's bad enough!  But using the full weight of the federal government's enforcement powers to stiffle free speech should trouble all Americans and all of us even more.  We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies, because they do not like what they say.  The latest effort to squelch free speech raises several serious questions.  Is this what we've come to as a country that an individual or company can no longer factually advocate their position on an incredibly important public policy issue?  Is this what we've come to in America, Mr. Presdent?  Shouldn't customers have a right to know the potential impact of a Congressional action?  Is this what we believe in the Senate that this body should debate a trillion-dollar health-care bill that affects every single American while using the powerful arm of government to shut down speech?  Is this how citizens and companies can expect to be treated if health-care reform passes, that any health provider that disagrees with a powerful senator will be subject to an investigation and a gag order for disagreeing with a powerful senator?  How is this any different than [what] The Washington Post and New York Times have done in lobbying for reporter shield law?  Would we stand by if the Judiciary Committee asked the FBI to investigate the media for taking positions on pending legislation we don't agree with?  Of course, not!  Of course, not!  Humana is headquartered in my home down of Louisville, and, yes, I care deeply about its eight-thousand employees in Kentucky, but this gag order, Mr. President, this gag order, now applies to all Medicare Advantage providers.  'Shut up!' the government says.  'Don't communicate with your customers.  Be quiet and get in line!'  I would remind my colleagues that I have spent a good part of my career defending the First Amendment rights of people to criticize their elected officials, including me.  I would make the same argument if this were a company based in San Francisco or Helena, Montana, or Chicago.  The right to free speech is at the core of our democracy.  Free citizens have a First Amendment right to petition their government for a redress of grievences.  This gag order on companies like Humana and those in all our states--in my view--is a clear violation of that right, and it is wrong!  Employers that warn their customers about the effects of legislation aren't the ones who should be getting warnings here, Mr. President.  They aren't the ones who ought be getting warnings!  Senators who threaten First Amendments rights are ones who should be getting the warnings!...."  [By the way, the U.S. Senator referred to in the speech was U.S. Senator Max Baucus (who was a Democrat and who represented Montana), and the federal agency referred to in the speech was the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.]

    Special history was made by patriots at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, November 5, 2009.  The event began to be set up on Friday, October 30, 2009, when U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (a Republican related to Minnesota) appeared on Hannity, a weekday television show on the Fox News Channel that is hosted by Sean Hannity, and she reported that she was involved in setting up a tea-party-type event at the Capitol at noon on Thursday, November 2, 2009, and the event was related to the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi health-care bill (HR 3962) that would be voted on sometime soon after Thursdays, November 5, 2009, and she wanted as many people was possible to show up, attend a rally at the Capitol, and then visit offices of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, show a page of the bill, ask members what the features mean, and urge the members to vote "no" on the bill.  On Thursday, November 5, 2009, thousands appeared for the event, and some of the well-known people who showed up were Michele Bachmann, Jon Voight (an actor), John Ratzenberger (an actor), and Mark R. Levin (the host of The Mark Levin Show, a nationally syndicated radio show), who, on the day, while doing his radio show could only estimate some 20,000 persons showed up.  By the way, on Thursday, November 5, 2009, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann appeared on The Mark Levin Show and urged listeners to show up at the Capitol on Friday, November 6, 2009, and on Saturday, November 7, 2009.
    "For the record," I present what Mark R. Levin, who had wrote the best-selling book entitled Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, said at the event of Thursday: "...First of all, I want to thank you all for coming out here.  Many of you traveled from all over the country at, dah, great expense, ah, and, ah, and we thank you very much.  By the way, the press here, this is about--right this down--'liberty.'  Just thought you'd wanna know."  The crowd roared approvingly.  "Now, you see this building here--you own that building."  The crowd roared.  "The people who run that building today, they reject limited constitutional government.  They have spent trillions and trillions of dollars that do not belong to them.  They have bankrupted our children.  They have driven unemployment to nearly ten percent.  They are destroying small businesses.  They are nationalizing large businesses.  They don't believe in private property rights.  They're taking a wrecking ball to this magnificent society.  And that's the first nine months."  People nearby laughed.  "Now, I know they haven't read that bill, 'cause I know they can't write--in the first place.  Not you!"  [The last sentence referred to someone near him, and that may have been Michele Bachmann.]  "I mean them.  But they're not done.  Having ruined the banking system, the auto industry, the housing market, energy production, the education system, having robbed the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, and the highway trust fund, now they tell us to trust them.  Do trust them?"  The crowd gave a negative response ("No!').  "Now, they have their sights on the mother of all entitlements.  They want to control you.  They want to control your children, your parents, your doctor, your nurse.  You in the press--You getting all this down, this is brilliant stuff?  These are patriot citizens out here, and I'm tired of them being smeared to be perfectly honest with ya.  And we're not going anywhere.  Now, they want to control health care.  They want to control what kind of insurance you can purchase.  They want to control if you can purchase insurance.  They want to decide what benefits you can and cannot have.  They want to decide how much you're going to pay.  And they want to ration care.  And the bottom line is they want to play God and decide who lives and who dies.  That's pretty scary.  And for them, when they're asked, 'Where's your authority under The Constitution?'  They laugh.  'Ta hell with The Constitution,' they say.  'Ta hell with individual liberty and private property.'  'Ta hell with people who want nothing to do with this'--which is most of us.  But not so fast.  We're not ready for this.  The American people."  Someone in the audience said something.that interrupted him.  "'Vote 'em out,' he says.  Oh, let me tell you something.  Let me tell you something.  They don't know what they're in for next November, you they?  All right.  It's a press conference.  Doesn't much matter.  They won't get it right anyway.  Not all of you."  He seemed to be referring to the press people in the audience.  "All right.  Now, the politicians in this country--not all of them, some of them, we need to be descerning--but a lot of the politicians in this country are drunk with power.  All right let it go."   The crowd responded.  "Who am I to stop them?"  The crowd was shouting something.  "Vote them out!  Vote them out!"  The crowd shouted more.  "All right.  I'm not allowed to join them.  All right.  They want me to cut to the chase.  So here's, here's the chase.  I want to quote Ronald Reagan, because he could say things the rest of us could never say.  He said, 'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn't pass it to our children in the blood stream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.'  God bless, you.  God bless, America."  [Note: The material of Ronald Reagan's is presented earlier within this document.]
    And, "for the record," I now present some of the statements that Jon Voight said: "...We do not want our freedom of choice taken away from us.  President Obama has his own obsession with trying to ram this health bill through to create a socialist America.  We would be no better off than than the European countries and Canada and New Zealand who suffer greatly from a poor health-care system.  Their rationing system creates many deaths.  Is that what we want?"  The crowd gave a negative response ("No!").  "I agree with you.  I say 'no' as well.  We as freedom-loving Americans must not be scared into Obama's radical Chicago tactics.  His agenda is not for the poor.  It is solely for his political gain.  The lies and propaganda are all very blatant, as shown to us by those who exposed ACORN, which, which is as corrupt as all the President's czars.  This country  is showing signs of his failed stimulus programs.  His only success in his one-year term as President is taking America apart--piece by piece.  Could it be he has had twenty years of subconscious programming by Reverend Wright to damn America?  Let them hear our concerns and deep commitment to our love of liberty, freedom, and protection of our great America...."
    [Note: The audio material from which the text for this section is derived I heard on The Mark Levin Show on Thursday, November 5, 2009.]

    On Wednesday, January  27, 2010, Barack Obama made a State of the Union speech before the U.S. Congress and the people of the United States of America, and it was a speech filled with lies and nonsense (evidence of which can be seen in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using this Quotes link, and the evidence will be found in the section for January 27, 2010).  On this date, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito showed himself to be a patriot through an action that he did while Barack Obama was speaking.  Let me show two events that happened at the same time.  Barack Obama got on to the topic of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision about election campaigns and money, and, at one point, he said: "...including foreign corporations, to spend without limit...."   While those words were being spoken, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was sitting with the other U.S. Supreme Court Justices, in essence, right before Barack Obama, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito nodded "no" and mouthed at least "not true," showing his disagreement with Barack Obama.  What Barack Obama was hinting at is that now foreign corporations could be involved in putting money into election campaigns in the country, which is wrong.  (You are urged to see my document entitled Fairness?: A Guide for the Individual in the United States of  America, which can be reached by using this link: Fairness.).

    Between January 20, 2009, and February 25, 2010, Barack Obama was pushing hard to get a national-health-care bill passed, and on February 25, 2010, Barack Obama held a health-care summit in the Green Room of Blair House in Washington, D.C., which was attended by some Democrats from the U.S. Congress and some Republicans from the U.S. Congress.  To me, it looked as if the event was supposed to make the Republicans in the U.S. Congress look as if  they were the reason a health-care bill had not passed it.  Such Republicans as U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (of Tennessee) and U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky) were some of the Republicans who made Barack Obama look bad by sounding smart and by sounding logical and by telling the American people what has been going on with health-care bills and what the Barack Obama health-care is about (and you can learn more about what happened by seeing "Special Note #35" of my document entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached can be reached by using this link: Health).  U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (a Republican related to Wisconsin) made some statements that seemed to anger Barack Obama, and one of the statements was: "...We agree on the problem here, and the problem is health inflation is driving us off the fiscal cliff.  Mr. President, you said, 'Health-care reform is budget reform.'  You're right!  We agree with that!  Medicare right now is a thirty-eight-trillion-dollar unfunded liability--that's thirty-eight trillion in empty promises to my parent's generation, our generation, our kids' generation.  Medicaid is growing at twenty-one percent this year.  It's suffocating states' budgets.  It's adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for it.  Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation.  And, in September, when you spoke to us, ah, in the Well of the House, you basically said--and I fully agree with this--'I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.'  But since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.  Ah, and if you take a look at the CBO analysis, the analysis from your chief actuary, I think it's very revealing.  This bill does not control costs!  This bill does not reduce deficits!  Instead, this bill adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.  Well, let me go through why I say that.  Ah, the majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit a hundred-thirty-one-billion dollars over the next ten years. First, a little bit about CBO.  I work with them every single day.  Very good people.  Great professionals.  They do their jobs well, but their job to score what is placed in front of them, and what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke and mirrors.  And what do I mean by that?  Well, first off, the bill has ten years of tax increases, about half-a-trillion dollars, with ten years of Medicare cuts, about half-a-trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.  Now, what's the true ten-year cost of this bill?  In ten years, it's two-point-three-trillion dollars.  It does a couple of other things.  It takes fifty-two-billion dollars in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsents, offsets, but that's really reserved for Social Security.  So either we're double counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits...."   Later Paul Ryan said: "...The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that, 'This [the Barack Obama health-care bill] is a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.'  Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does is treats like Medicare like a piggy bank.  It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare not to shore up Medicare solvency but to spend on this new government program...."  Paul Ryan also said: "...When you strip out the double counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full ten-year cost of this bill has a four-hundred-sixty-billion deficit.  The second ten-year cost of this bill has a one-point-four-trillion-dollar deficit...."   And Paul Ryan also said: "...Hiding spending does not reduce spending.  And so when you take a look of all this, it just doesn't add up...."

    On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Sean Hannity of the nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Sean Hannity Show interviewed U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (a Republican related to Kentucky), who over the previous several days had blocked (up till recently) the passing of an unemployment-benefits bill through the U.S. Senate, and this section provides some reasons why Jim Bunning had for a short while blocked the passing of the bill.  By the way, before this interview and stalling event took place, Jim Bunning had made it clear that he was going to retire soon.  Here is most of the interview (presented in text form, of course), and, actually, I provide the interview in three pieces.
    Here is the first piece of the interview that I have for you:
    Sean Hannity: "...Jim Bunning, Senator Bunning joins us now on our newsmaker line.  Senator, how are ya?"
    Jim Bunning: "Sean."
    Sean Hannity: "Well, let me first applaud you, 'cause I guess it was a pretty stressful couple of days, getting hammered out there by the left-wing media."
    Jim Bunning: "Well, not when you have been exposed to the New YorkYankees in 1961 or...there are a lot people that gave me sixty-two-thousand, ah, phone calls, ah, at that time, and they were screaming at me, so, ah, I'm kind of got thick skin."
    Sean Hannity: "All right, well, let me give you an example.  NewsBusters pointed out that ABC said that you were denying people unemployment benefits.  So, ABC decided to confront you.   Ah, this is Jonathan Karl that was trying to talk [to] you when you were getting on the elevator, and you said--Sorry, this is, ah, for Senators only.  See you later.  Tell us what happened."
    Jim Bunning: "Well, ah, for the last, ah, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and, ah, last week on, ah, Friday, ah, obviously, the, ah, electronic and print media have been surrounding, ah, my office and camping out, and I was going to, ah, a, ah, committee meeting at the time, and I said, 'I'm, sorry.  I'm getting on the elevator, and this elevator is reserved for Senators only.'"
    Sean Hannity: "Um-hum.  All right.  Tell us what exactly was you're opposing in this bill and why."
    Jim Bunning: "Okay.  Just over about a month ago, Sean, ah, the Democrats passed 'pay-go' legislation, and then turned around and waved it for the next two major pieces of legi, legislation that we considered in the Senate.  And, ah, I just wanted to expose the emperor has no clothes, because 'pay-go' to the Democrats means pay and print the money to pay for the bills that are on the floor.  Presently...I just got, I just go fed up and said, 'Enough is enough!  Ah, everything is going busted!   Fourteen-trillion dollars!  Plus a, a Presidential budget that, that is of one-point-five-trillion dollars, ah, in the red.  That's what's been proposed.'  So, I made a good-faith effort with the Democrats to work out a way to pay for the ten-billiion-dollar cost of that one-month extender bill.  And, ah, we came to an agreement on how to do that, dah, and I had an agreement with Senator Reid, ah, to have a vote last night--I guess, yeah, last night--and, ah, on my amendment to fully pay for these temporary extensions."
    Sean Hannity: "Now, you lost that amendment?..."
    They spoke over each other
    Jim Bunning: "...Let me explain.  I had an agreement with Reid to vote on the amendment--up or down.  So that's different than having a, a budget point of order against the amendment.  So, the Democrats practice hypocrisy by not allowing an up or down vote to pay for it!  They made a point of order against my pay fors.  So, they didn't.   They.  What are they afraid to vote on?  I mean they've got fifty-nine people, and, and I only have forty-one--or at least forty-one in my caucus.  So, they made a point of order, and I got, I actually got three Democrats who supported my position, ah, on that, dah, point of order, that we obviously should vote on my amendment to pay or not to pay."
    Here is the second piece:
    Jim Bunning: "Ten-billion bucks on top of another ten that Harry put, Harry Reid put on the floor, ah, the bill before.  And we're dealing right now with a bill that has a hundred-and-four-billion in emergency spending.  That means it goes to the bottom line of the deficit.  So, this is a not a one-time occurrence.  And I have voted to extend unemployment benefits ad nauseam for the last year and a half, because I know people are hurting out there."
    Sean Hannity: "Well, but the point is that thi, this supposedly they made a big show of this, this passage of, of pay-go and this discussion of pay-go, and you were basically holding them accountable to what they said.  Isn't that true?"
    Jim Bunning: "I'm trying to, at least trying to make the effort to say, 'Hey, enough is enough, guys and gals, ah, we're, we're, ah, we're in!'  Even though I don't agree with Ben Bernanke very often...."
    Sean Hannity: "Yeah."
    Jim Bunning: " know, as head of the...'
    Sean Hannity: "Neither, neither do I."
    Jim Bunning: "Well, he, he appeared before, ah, our committee on banking, in his, in semiannual report to, and he said the debt we have now is unsustainable.  What does that mean...means to my forty grand kids?  ...We are spending their money...."
    Sean Hannity: "You have forty grand kids?"
    Jim Bunning: "Yeah!"
    Sean Hannity: "Holy moly!  That's, that's a lot of grand kids, Senator."
    Jim Bunning: "Well, I've got nine children, and they're active."
    Sean Hannity laughed a bit.
    Sean Hannity: "I don't know why that just cracks me up.  That's funny.  All right.  Well, go back to your point.  I don't want to interrupt you."
    Jim Bunning: "No, but, but they're getting handed--we're spending the money, my generation, and my, my children, my nine children and my forty grandchildren are going to get handed the bill, and even the head of the Federal Reserve, who I disagree with most of the time, said, 'We can't sustain this!'  And even some of the, ah, rating agencies are looking at our debt rating.  And you know what happens if they downgrade our debt?"
    Sean Hannity: "Yeah.  From triple-A.  It's now in jeopardy.  We're in trouble."
    Jim Bunning: "Yeah!  We're, I mean we're in big deep trouble!  And yet the Democrats act like nothing has happened?"
    Here is the third piece:
    Jim Bunning: "You know, Sean, I, for thirty-one years, was a, in the brokerage business, ah, all the time I was in the, ah, off season of baseball and even thereafter, I, I, I worked in the brokerage business.  I'm telling you, in watching the market and the talking heads on CNBC, on MSNBC...."
    Sean Hannity: "No, no!  On Fox Business...."
    Jim Bunning: "....on all!  And they're all sugar coating what we're looking at down the road.  Now, you know, my state has ten-plus percent unemployment, and the U.S.--you know, you know, what was said with the Stimulus Bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009] that this was going to hold our unemployment under eight percent--well, we broke ten.  And now we're at nine-point-seven.  And I'm not so sure it's over.  So, I am worried to death, if we don't get our spending under control, that we're going to get downgraded and then God knows what happens!"
    Sean Hannity: "What do you think happens, Senator?  I mean, you've been around...."
    Jim Bunning: "...Where's China?  Where is, ah, England?  Where are all these people that buy our paper?  Ah, where are they going to be?  They're going to be left holding and.  Ah, think of every senior citizen that has worked their you-know-what off their whole life, saved for their retirement, and their dollar is now worth twenty cents."
    Sean Hannity: "Are you saying that, that even Treasury Bonds could be worthless?"
    Jim Bunning: "I'm not saying they'd be worthless.'re going to have a devil of a time selling them if they get downgraded below triple-A."
    Sean Hannity: "Do you think this could happen in the near future?"
    Jim Bunning: "I think it could happen within the next year.  I mean, if, if the health-care bill passes and it's unpaid for, and it costs one, over a trillion dollars and we don't pay for it, I think that's the last straw.  I think that, that means to, ah, the people in spite of what the President has now been saying on the air, that we got problems!  We have bigger problems than the markets and the bankers and the brokers and all those folks, every day, are preaching to us on our television sets."
    Sean Hannity: "You're scaring the living daylights out of me...."
    Jim Bunning: "I'm not scaring...."
    Sean Hannity: "Now, you are!  I'm, I'm, I.  Listen, Senator, I believe you.  I, I...."
    Jim Bunning: "..on the Finance Committee.  I've been on the Banking Committee for over twenty years--both in the House and Senate.  I've been on the Budget Committee for twenty years--both in the House and in the Senate.  And I am.  In, in ten years, if we triple the debt, which is what is going to happen under the proposed budget that we have before us right now, if we triple the debt, you now what the interest payments will be in the year twenty, twa, twenty-twenty?  Over eight-hundred-billion.  That's in current interest rates!  Just..."
    Sean Hannity: "Which are low, which are low."
    Jim Bunning: "Which are as low as they can get.  Just think what happens if we we're to five or six or seven percent interest rates--we're over a trillion dollars in interest only...."
    Sean Hannity: "I told...I, I brought this story up last night with Mitt Romney, who was on my, on television program Hannity, and, dah, and I brought up...a friend of mine that I know in Florida, and he does a lot of business with China, and he said th, he, for the most part, the people he does business with have pretty much dismissed the U.S., as, you know, gonna down the, the path of old Europe, and that America's better days are behind it...."
    That covers the interview, which happened to take place on the same day that Barack Obama made a public appearance to push the U.S. Congress to vote now on a health-care bill, hinting the bill should not be debated anymore and should be passed through the "budget reconciliation" process.

    On May 6, 2010, Mark R. Levin, who hosts The Mark Levin Show, which is a nationally syndicated radio show, did a special interview during the second hour of his show, and the interview was with Dan Galli and his stepfather, Ken Jones.  The interview was done, because, on Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Dan Galli and three other students at a high school (Live Oak High School) in Morgan Hill, California, had been involved in an incident in which the principal and the assistant principal did not like that the students, who were four males, had the flag of the United States of America on some of their clothing, and the event had happened on a day that is known by some persons as "Cinco de Mayo," which is sort of considered a Spanish-type holiday, though it is not a recognized holiday in the United States of America or even an official holiday in Mexico.  Here is a text version of much of the interview:
    Mark Levin: "All right, it's my pleasure to welcome, um, Dan Galley and father Ken Jones.  How are you, gentlemen?"
    Dan Galli: "I'm good."
    Ken Jones: "Hello, Great One."  (At this point, it was hard to hear Ken Jones.)
    Mark Levin: "Okay.  Who is who?"
    Dan Galli: "I'm Daniel."
    Mark Levin: "You're Daniel.  And that's Ken in the background, there."
    Ken Jones: "...father...."  (At this point, there was distortion when Ken spoke.)
    Mark Levin: "Okay.  We don't have a good connection with Ken.  I'm hearing a lot of echo, kids.  Let's see if we can work on that while I talk to Dan, here."
    Ken Jones: "Right.  Got it."  (The signal cleared up for some reason.)
    Mark Levin: "All right.  There we go.  Now, Dan, how old are you?"
    Dan Galli: "I'm sixteen."
    Mark Levin: "And what grade are you in?"
    Dan Galli: "I'm a sophomore."
    Mark Levin: "You're a sophomore."
    Dan Galli: "Yes."
    Mark Levin: "Now, tell us briefly what happened and exactly what happened."
    Dan Galli: "...We were at brunch, which is a little time we have, um, to eat and have friends.  We were goin' along with our daily business.  Um, some of us, some us, a few had bandanas on, which rules, so the vice principal came up and told us to take that off, that off so we complied.  And then a couple minutes later, he said, 'Come on, come with me.  You have to take your shirt off.'  And we didn't know why.  So then...."
    Mark Levin: "All right, all right, let me, let me slow you down."
    Dan Galli: "Okay."
    Mark Levin: "So, you, you wearing....  How many of you are there?"
    Dan Galli: "There's four of us."
    Mark Levin: "How many are wearing bandanas?  You are and who else?  Another guy?"
    Dan Galli: "I, was two ribbons...."
    Mark Levin: "And it's against school rules to wear them, period?"
    Dan Galli: "Period.  No matter what they are, 'cause they think they show gang paraphernalia."
    Mark Levin: "And this was the American flag showing gang paraphernalia?"
    Dan Galli: "I guess so."
    Mark Levin: "And, dah, you were wearing an American flag where?"
    Dan Galli: "I was wearing an American flag on my shirt, and then I had these swim trunks that were also....American flags."
    Mark Levin: "And, dah, and a couple others were also wearing American flags on their shirts?"
    Dan Galli: "Yes."
    Mark Levin: "And you were sitting together?"
    Dan Galli: "Yes.  There is...we were all generally in the same vicinity, but we were all in the same group, yes."
    Mark Levin: "Okay.  Were, was anybody wearing, ah, any Mexican attire?"
    Dan Galli: "Oh, yes.  Not around us, but I saw a lot of people at the brief time I was a school that had Mexican flags, all that stuff."
    Mark Levin: "Any Ecuadorian flags, Bolivian flags, Peruvian flags, ah, the whole, ah, U.N. thing gong on there?"
    Dan Galli: "No.  All I saw was Mexican."
    Mark Levin: "...Could you remember was anybody else wearing bandana?"
    Dan Galli: "Bandanas?"
    Mark Levin: "Yeah."
    Dan Galli: "Ah, not that I remember."
    Mark Levin: "Okay.  So this vice principal comes up to you guys and says, first of all, take off the bandanas and, secondly, come with me to the principal's office?"
    Dan Galli: "No.  He came up and told use to take off the bandanas, so we took them off.  Then, he left, and he came back a few minutes later, and that's when said, that's when he asks us to go with him and take off the shirts."
    Mark Levin: "Now, he asks you to go with him and take off the shirts--what to go to the men's room and take off their shirts?"
    Dan Galli: "No.  To go in to his office."
    Mark Levin: "To go in to his office?"
    Dan Galli: "Yes."
    Mark Levin: "And so did you all go to his office?"
    Dan Galli: "Well, first, it was just a few of us who had actual American flags on our shirt, and then there was two others that--you, you familiar with the brand TapouT?"
    Mark Levin: "Sure am.  I watch that, ah, WEC, UFC stuff all the time."
    Dan Galli: "Yeah.  I like it too.  So they were wearing that, which depicted American flags but weren't actual American flags, so they weren't asked to come with us at first, and then they were."
    Mark Levin: "So, they're wearing TapouT shirts, which is a sport, and they were told that those weren't appropriate?"
    Dan Galli: "Well, they saw us, they saw us, they saw me and my other friend going with them, so like well, do we have to come to you, we're wearing this, in defense of us?  And they said, 'Yes.'"
    Mark Levin: "All right.  Now, where did you go with this vice principal?"
    Dan Galli: "Well, first, we, we just went in to his office, and then, one of my friends called his mom, who then informed my mom and the other moms, and they came in, and then we had a long conference with the principal and the vice principal...."
    Mark Levin: "All right.  Let me slow you down.  When you were in with the vice pres, vice principal, what did he say to you guys?  By the way, are you all guys?  Any girls?"
    Dan Galli: "We are all males.  But, um, at first, he was just, he was, when it was just us, he was giving us like a little history lesson, briefing us on, um, the history of Cinco de Mayo."
    Mark Levin: "Well, what the heck does that have to do with wearing the American flag?"
    Dan Galli: "I'm not sure.  But he was trying, I think he was just trying to show them, us why how it was right for them to wear it in American.  I guess that was his motive."
    Mark Levin: "Well, nobody's stopping them from wearing whatever they want.  The problem is they're stopping you from wearing an American flag."
    Dan Galli: "Yeah.  Exactly.  We, we didn't say anything to any Mexican Americans.  We didn't do anything.  We just went along with our normal day.  We had stuff said to us, but we never, we never retaliated at all."
    Mark Levin: "You had stuff said to you by other students?"
    Dan Galli: "Yes, by Mexican Americans, I had some that said, 'Why are you wearing that?  It's not Fourth of July.  Um, this is Cinco de Mayo.  It's supposed to be our day.'  And just other stuff like that...I was only in school for three hours, and then I was asked to leave."   (It seems Ken tried to say something, but Dan spoke over Ken.)
    Mark Levin: "I see.  Now, when did you go to the principal?"
    Dan Galli: "Um, well, he, he joined into the conference when the parents got there.  And then he came in, and we just had this...big long conference."
    Mark Levin: "And what did he say to the parents and you [in] this big long conference?"
    Dan Galli: "Ah, well, Mr. Boden, our principal, said that it would be fine to wear that any other day, but since it was Cinco de Mayo, it was offensive to Mexican Americans."
    Mark Levin: "I see.  Now, why would the American--did he tell why the American flag would be offensive to Mexica?  Because, by the way, I think he's wrong!  [Dan tried to speak, but Mark Levin talked over him.]  Why did he say the American flag would be offensive to Mexican Americans when we have Mexican Americans fighting under the American flag?"
    Dan Galli: "I agree."
    Mark Levin: "Maybe, it's his mindset that's a little warped.  Don't answer that!  He's your principal."
    Dan Galli: "I won't."
    Mark Levin:  "You have a principal named Nick Boden.  I've looked this up.  You have an assistant principal, was it Miguel Rodriguez?"
    Dan Galli: "Yes."
    Mark Levin: "Now, ah, so.  Who showed up for you?  Did?  Well, let me go to your, your step dad, Ken."
    Dan Galli: "Okay."
    Mark Levin: "Ken, how are you, sir?"
    Ken Jones: "...Thank you, Great One.   Good to talk to you."
    Mark Levin: "Well, it's a pleasure, my friend.  Did you ever think we'd be talking about this?"
    Ken Jones: "Never, never!  I listen to you all the time."
    Mark Levin: "Well, thank you.  So, was it your wife--did she go to this event, this meeting?
    Ken Jones: "That is correct.  She went, ah, she was called in.  And the interesting thing about all this, Mark, is it's school policy not to talk to the kids about things like this without calling the parents first.  And, dah, and that was the whole thing.  They were hauling the kids in to the principal's office and, ah, even the kids said, 'Hey, you know, you need to contact our parents.'  And they said, 'Okay, fine, call your parents.'  And that's when the moms and one dad arrived, and, dah, they started talking about, dah, the fact that the, ah, American flag could for, ferment some drama as they said amongst the students, and they wanted the chirts, shirts turned inside out."
    At this point, Mark Levin went to a commercial break, and when the commercial break--the long commercial break--was done, Mark Levin did a bit more interviewing, but I leave that material unreported here.
    You should see the non-patriots are Mr. Nick Boden and Mr. Miguel Rodriguez--they are people who put "Cinco de Mayo," which is not a holiday associated with the United States of America, above the U.S. flag, and that should make a person wonder about the state of affairs of public schools in the United States of America!

    In May 2010, Chris Christie (a Republican) was the governor of New Jersey), and on May 13, 2010, Chris Christie held a news conference.  At the news conference were reporters, such as Tom Moran (of New York Star-Ledger), and, at one point during the event, Tom Moran asked a question, which is unnecessary to know at this time, and, anyway, it matters not who Tom Moran is.  Chris Christie gave a response to Tom Moran, and here is a part of the response:
    "You know, Tom, you must be the thinnest-skinned guy in America, 'cause you think that's a confrontational tone, then I, you should really see me when I'm pissed!  Ah, you know, that's not confrontational.  All right?  So, you know, there is, there.  I love when people say, 'They don't wanna have argument.'  That's what we were sent here for.  They believe in certain things.  They believe in bigger government, higher taxes, and more spending."  [Chris Christie held up a sheet of paper or, maybe, several sheets of paper.]  "Here it is--bigger government, higher taxes, more spending.  I believe in less government, lower taxes, and in empowering local officials who are elected by their citizens to be able to fix their problems.  That may lead to a disagreement or two.  Now, I could say it really nicely.  I could say it in a way that you all might be more comfortable with.  You now, maybe, we could go back to the last administration [in New Jersey] where I could say in a way that you wouldn't even understand it.  Okay?  But the fact of the matter is this is who I am!  And this is who the people elected.  And so, you guys, want to continue to talk about this process stuff, about my tone, my combativeness.  You know, we got them standing in, in the doorway of the Senate saying they won't even hold a hearing on an enormously qualified Supreme Court nominee.  You know, if, but that's not combative or confrontational--of course, not.  You know, only I'm combative or confrontational.  Listen, everybody plays to their party.  This is who I am.  Um, like it or not, you guys are stuck with me for four years.   And I'm going to say things directly.  When you ask me questions, I'm going to answer them directly, straightly, bluntly, and nobody in New Jersey is gonna have to wonder where I am on an issue.  Ah, and I think they've had enough of politicians who make them wonder.  'Cause, you know, most of the time why they make them wonder, Tom, they make them wonder so they got an escape hatch--so they have an escape hatch.  And I'm not interested in the escape hatch.  I came here to govern, not to escape.  I came here to govern, not to worry about re-election.  I came here to do what people sent me here to do.  And, so, blunt, direct--maybe you might say 'honest and refreshing'--maybe we could see that in your paper tomorrow...."

    Around April 2010 and May 2010, the governor of Arizona was Jan Brewer.  On April 23, 2010, Jan Brewer signed into law the Support Our Law Enforcement ad Safe Neighborhoods Act,  which was designed to help police in Arizona better deal with illegal aliens, and the law became a national story, and, for example, soon after the law was made, Barack Obama put down the people of Arizona when talking about the law.  On Saturday, May 15, 2010, Jan Brewer made some statements that show that she is a "patriot," and, for example, Jan Brewer said, "...While the President is making wisecracks and playing racial politics, some groups have suggested that Arizona be punished for enforcing laws that our federal government has failed to enforce.  That is misguided at best.  Our purpose today is to help the rest of the nation understand the crisis which confronts our state.  Our nation's government is broken.  Our border is being erased.  And the President apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political convenience...."  and "...It's fair to ask whether he intends to be the Comander-in-Chief or the Comic-in-Chief.  Since the President's joke was so inappropriate, I suppose, if I wanted to join in the comedian game, I could suggest that he not give up is day job.  Unfortunately, though, he isn't doing very well at that one either...."  (By the way, on May 1, 2010, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Barack Obama had said: "...We all know what happens in Arizona when you don't have I.D.  Adios, Amigos!....")

    It is very clear that Barack Obama and his associates want to put the coal industry of the country out of business, which, I say, has nothing to do with manmade global warming, as Barack Obama and his associates might hope you would believe (and one place in which you can find Barack Obama's January 2008 statement showing is willingness to put coal-fire power plants out of business, which would hurt the coal industry, is my document entitled Political Lessons for the Individual Woman and the Individual Man in the United States of America, which can be reached by using the link at the end of this document).  The Environmental Protection Agency is headed by a person (Lisa Jackson) who was appointed by Barack Obama, and that person and others at the Environmental Protection Agency have shown in the past their dislike for the United States of America, such as the coal industry.  At public hearing conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 25, 2010, Bill Bissett, the President of the Kentucky Coal Association, said: " ...And you scare us!  You're killing jobs.  You're putting people out of work.  And you're doing so without a thought or a care.  Your director, Lisa Jackson, literally said, I don't care about the economic impact.'   The social destruction that you're going to do in southern West Virginia, in eastern Kentucky, in western Kentucky, throughout the coal fields, throughout Appalachia.  We're not going to sit here quietly and take it.  It's wrong!  You are not talking to us.  You're not answering questions tonight.  That does not surprise me.  You do not answer the media's questions.  You do not answer the industry's questions.  You need to be held accountable, because you're a public agency.  You serve fifty states--not six.  Why are you targeting Appalachia?  It's unfair, and it's wrong!  It's an injustice.  And that's why there are so many people here tonight who believe in coal, who believe in these jobs, and believe in these miners.  I'm telling you--I stand here, right now, representing the Western Kentucky Coal Association, the Friends of Coal, the Kentucky Association of Manufacturers, the Kentucky Chamber.  We're all here tonight, because we have to listen, we have better things to do with our time, but you have chosen to veto this permit and put people out of work.  We are afraid that you will do that in Kentucky, and that is wrong.  It's wrong in West Virginia, and it's wrong in Kentucky.  We depend on energy in this country.  If, if the economy rebounds, energy demands are only going to skyrocket, and you're trying to kill coal.  Again, in only six states, which I find very suspicious, that you're concerned about water quality.  Be concerned about water quality, but not an individual industry.  That is selective enforcement and unfair.  I ask you to strongly reconsider your action, because we are watching you.  An election just happened in Kentucky, and we're paying attention.  We're going to be more politically active.  And if you don't believe me, call Alan Mollohan, right now...."  I first heard an audio clip of this quoted set of words on The Mark Levin Show (a nationally syndicated radio show) on Monday, June 7, 2010, when the show was being hosted by guest-host Tom Marr, who noted, after playing the clip, that the EPA was pulling permits for some coal operations.  The quoted material shows that at least Bill Bissett is aware that members of the EPA are purposely working to hurt the coal industry in the United States of America, and I do hope you see what this patriot--this Bill Bissett--does.  (Special note: You can never convince me Barack Obama is not working to hurt the United States of America!)

    Jon Voight is an actor and the father of Angelina Jolie (a well-known movie actress), and since January 20, 2010, Jon Voight has shown that he is a patriot, such as by attending some "tea parties," such as in Washington, D.C., and on Wednesday, June 23, 2010, Jon Voight was once again a guest on The Sean Hannity Show, which is a nationally syndicated radio show.  During the show, Jon Voight read a letter that he had addressed to Barack Obama and talked about a topic that he had just recently learning about, which was getting little publicity in the United States of America.  I show now some of the interview between Sean Hannity and Jon Voight in text form.
    Here is one part:
    Jon Voight: "...And here's the way it goes.   'President Obama, you will be the first American President who lied to the Jewish people and the American people as well when you said that you would defend Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies.  You have done just the opposite.  You have propagandized Israel into looking like they are everybody's enemies, and it has resonated throughout the world.  You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.  You have brought this to a people who have given this world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today.  The Jewish people have given our world the greatest scientists and philosophers and cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs, but the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.  You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens.  Your destruction of this country, we may never recover from.  I pray to God you stop.  And I hope the people of this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.  With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel, Jon Voight.'   [I designed the punctuation for Jon Voight's letter, though the letter did get published in The Washington Times on June 23, 2010, because I wished to present the letter as he read it.]
    Sean Hannity: "That is a very powerful letter.  Tell us why you wanted to write this."
    Jon Voight: "Well, you know, Sean, it, it becomes very clear that, ah, our President's agenda is not to protect Israel or America.  I can say with conviction, his agenda is to bring America into becoming a weak socialist country.  And, dah, and, of course, he has come, come out against Arizona in hopes to bring amnesty to the illegal aliens for votes in the next election.  All these things that we're seeing, ah, require answers, and, dah, and, and so I felt, you know, this burning need to express myself to it.  There's something else that I, I would like to broach with you today.  I just came across something which really amazed me!  It's quite extraordinary news and no one's covering it.  There was a statement made by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit--I think it's called, it, it's pronounced--and it was made on Nile TV about January on a, on a, ah, program called The Round Table.  Right?"
    Sean Hannity: "Um-hum."
    Jon Voight: "Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with President Obama, where the President told him he was still a Muslim, son of a Muslim father, the step-son of a Muslim step-father, and his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims."
    Sean Hannity: "Who is this guy?"
    Jon Voight: "This, this fellow is the Egyptian Foreign Minister.  And it goes on to say Gheit claimed Obama told the Arabs to show patients.  Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic issues--like the health-care reform, I assume--he would show the Muslim world how to deal with Israel.  Now, this is, I mean, devastating news!  And, dah, and no one seems to be covering.  But, but if, if this is true, and apparently they have a video of this, ah, of this, you know, announcement that could explain, of course, why so many things have happened during the last year and a half and explain why Obama has in, instructed that the term 'Islamic extremism' no longer is used officially in documents and statements.  I mean, many, many things, and, and when you look back, you know, to the very first moments of his presidency, the first move he made was to, to make a call to the Muslim world from the Oval Office sending his love.  So, I mean, it's, it was very disturbing...."
    Here is another part:
    Sean Hannity: "...I see, when you listen to fundamentalist extremists and they talk about annihilating Israel and wiping it off the map..."
    Jon Voight: "Right!"
    Sean Hannity: "...and it's, it's said often, and it is said by people in pursuit of nuclear weapons, it is one of the most frightening things literally because they want, they are saying publicly they want a holocaust in this world we live in.  So, wha, what do you mean when you say the President promoted anti-Semitism?  It's a very strong charge."
    Jon Voight: "Well, it's easy to promote anti-Semitism, isn't it?  One, one strike of the match and, and the fire is lit.  Ah, there are many things.  And first of all, his, his stance on the flotilla, ah, where he sided with the, the UN Human Rights Council a, a, against Israel, when we know the evidence is very clear that this was a setup that the Israelis fe, fell into with a, a legitimate blockade, and, of course, O, Obama ordered Israel to stop building on their own land, ah, which, of course, ah, you know, created renewed violence in the Palestinian world.  I mean, there, there are many, many things.  You can go down a whole list."

    Two events related to U.S. Representative Stephen Buyer (a Republican related to Indiana) that I learned about on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, help show that Stephen Buyer is a "patriot."  First, on Monday, November 29, 2010, Stephen Buyer was on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and was trying to make it possible for him to speak on the floor, and I show, here, some of the words exchanged between Stephen Buyer and a woman in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives at the time.  Second, on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, Stephen Buyer was one of the guests on the syndicated radio show entitled The Sean Hannity Show, and during the interview with Sean Hannity, Stephen Buyer was able to explain more about what the entire incident of the previous day had been centered on.  I present two pieces of text, the first of which is a portion of the exchange of words that took place on Monday, November 29, 2010, and the second of which is a portion of the interview conducted on The Sean Hannity Show on Tuesday, November 3, 2010.
    Here is the first piece of text (taken from the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives incident), and, unfortunately for me and you, some of the words of the two persons could not be heard well by me so there are "..." at times in my presentation:
    Woman (in charge of the House proceedings at the time): "For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?"
    Stephen Buyer: "I address the House for five minutes.  Hearing no objections...."
    Woman: "Five-minute special orders are not be recognized...."
    Stephen Buyer: "I address the House for one minute."
    Woman: "....being entertained at this time."
    Stephen Buyer: "So, as a sitting member of the House, the Speaker chooses not to recognize another sitting member, is that correct?"
    Woman: "Recognition is within the discretion of the Speaker."
    Stephen Buyer: "So, the decretion...of...the Speaker, here, is not to recognize a ranking Republican member on a bill that is about to be heard that was never gone through the process of the committee!  I asked to be recognized!"
    Woman: "...will suspend."
    Stephen Buyer: "I ask...."
    Woman: "The gentleman has not been recognized."
    Stephen Buyer: "I ask to be recognized.  I ask you unanimous consent to address the House for one minute.   I don't even see anyone here on the floor to object, Madam Speaker!  It's within your discretion!  There is no one here to object!  This is why the American people have thrown you out of power!...."
    Here is the second piece of text (taken from The Sean Hannity Show):
    Sean Hannity: "Wow!  Pretty powerful.  And Congress Buyer is, ah, with us right now.  Congressman, good stuff!  How are ya?"
    Stephen Buyer: "Well, I'm fine."
    Sean Hannity: "Ah, give us the context of all of that."
    Stephen Buyer: "Well, I....  Listening to myself, you kind of took me back to.   I was pretty upset yesterday!  And...."
    Sean Hannity: "...You don't need to back peddle!  Just stand...."
    Stephen Buyer: "Well, I,...."
    Sean Hannity: "...People are cheering!"
    Stephen Buyer: "I was, I was upset, and, because you, you have to be very careful when you close so that, um, bad things don't happen.  This, people can be mischievous.  You have to watch out for what I call 'political treachery.'  And, ah, ah, I recall when, when Republicans turned power to Democrats, we, we made a pledge not to do this.  Respect the will of the American people, and change, change power, and I had a, a, an ugly sense that was not going to happen this time.  And I am the ranking Republican on the House Veterans Affairs Committee, and the Veterans Affairs Committee has always prided itself on being bipartisan and open and transparent, and, ah, the chairman of the committee, Bob Filner of California--I got notice on Friday, which is the day after Thanksgiving--that he's going to bring a bill to the floor that had never gone through the committee process for which I had objected to.  He didn't care about my objections, and he brought it right to the floor on Monday.  Members weren't even back.  Members didn't even know what the bill was about.  And the, wh, what I call 'political treachery' was is he titled the bill, ah, 'A Women's Veterans Bill or Rights.'  And...and he enumerated many things.  In essence, it would have given, it would have opened, ah, VA hospitals to abortion, to abortion providers.  And that's not what the VA hospitals are about.  And, and, ah, to swee, to sweeten this, or dare people to vote against what he was doing, he was going to do a 'manager's amendment' on the floor to, ah, ah, have, ah, ah, an 'Amputee Veterans Bill of Rights,' of which pitting disabled veterans against disabled veterans.  You know, that's not right at all!  But he was doing that to dare people to vote against his, his measure.  And when I got to the floor, I was very upset with what Bob was gonna, going to be doing here.  Ah he wasn't on the floor.  And, and so, I'm like, well, if he's on the here, not on the floor to present his bill, we should be going through regular order and the next bill should come up.  And I tried to get the Speaker to recognize me, and she wouldn't recognize me, and, ah, then I began to get very upset, Sean, because there's nothing more basic to individual freedom and liberty is your right to speak, and there were no other members on the floor, and, ah, she would not even recognize me for the purpose of speaking.  And it's not so much the, the lady in the chair at the time--it wasn't really her--it's about the parliamentarians.  Steny Hoyer, when he, when the Democrats took over the majority turned to the parliamentarians and said, 'You work for me.'  Where, when Republicans were in the majority, we believe in this deliberative process so much in the institution of Congress to have this open debate, and that's how you get a better product through this, this combat exchange of ideas and ideals--that's not what has been happening in Congress.  Congress has become a dark, mismanaged, and, and unorganized, um, institution--and undemocratic.  And so even some of the major pieces of legislation that we've done here over the last couple of years--whether, whether it was a tax bill that was written in the Rules Committee never when through the committee process, whether it was a rewrite of the Medicare rules, ah, ah, to provide for greater prescription-drug coverage, or the new energy bill or the, or the health bill--these things were, were written, eh, eh, behind closed doors, not fully vetted.  And I, American, American people are sick of it.  And I think they got to see, um, sort, sort of the, ah, misuse of power yesterday."
    And that covers what you should know, but you should also know that on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, Barack Obama had a meeting with ranking Republicans, hoping to give the impression that he was going to listen to the Republicans, though he and the Democrats in the U.S. Congress had not really listened to the Republicans over the last two years or so.

    Around the middle of February 2011, the biggest national news story was centered in Madison, Wisconsin, the capital of Wisconsin.  The state had about a three-point-six-billion budget deficit, and that is bad, and, for one, the governor of the state was pushing the passing a bill that would reduce the budget deficit and reduce the benefits a bit of some government employees and do other things, and that caused protests, such as by teachers and by people bused into Madison to help protest, such as people associated with Organizing for America, which is an entity the promotes or supports Barack Obama and Barack Obama's socialistic or communistic ideas for he country.  Barack Obama even publicly got involved in the event by commenting on it, supporting the protesters and calling what the governor of Wisconsin was doing an "assault on unions" [Note: It is not the job of a U.S. President to get involved in a local matter in such way).  Some people were comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolph Hitler and to Hosni Mubarak (the recent president of Egypt who had been, in essence, pushed out of his job by protesting Egyptians), and although the teachers made good pay at the time and had truly wonderful benefits packages, Reverend Jesse Jackson was at the protest event in Madison on Friday, February 18, 2011, and made this statement: "...And I think that the spirit of fighting back to close the north-south gap between...the surplus culture and the suffering culture...." (a comment that was supposed to give people the impression that, for example, teachers are a part of "the suffering culture" in the United States of America, which is big-time nonsense, and, by the way, Jesse Jackson's phrase is a rewording of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx's idea of "haves" and "have-nots" of society in The Communist Manifesto, which is a defective piece of writing).  On Monday, February 21,  2011, the governor of Wisconsin was interviewed by Mark R. Levin on the nationally syndicated radio show called The Mark Levin Show, and the governor gave his side to the story about what was happening and what was going on, and here is a portion of what the governor--Scott Walker, a patriot--said: "..It's pretty simple.  It is a bold, bold political move, and anytime you take on the status quo it is, but it is a pretty modest request.  And I think most, certainly most people in our state of Wisconsin, and I think most Americans would agree.  What we're asking for is to change collective bargaining for public employees in our state so that no longer would the benefits, ah, be a part of that.  It would be just narrowed down to the base salary for collective bargaining.  And it's, the reason for that is to balance our budget.  We're gonna go in a ask for all our state workers as well do the same to give five-point-eight percent for their pension and twelve-point-six, ah, percent premium for health care.  That'll apply to me, my Cabinet, my, my family, apply to everybody in the Legislature, as well as the workers out there.  And the reason for that is real simple.  By doing that, ah, we believe we can save not only three-hundred-million dollars fer, from state employees but we can save about four times that amount from local governments, and we know with a three-point-six-million dollar deficit, we got to cut aid to local government.  But unlike what they're doin' in New York or California, other places, we want to give our local governments the tools to offset that without cutting teachers or laying people off and doing other things that, that obviously would be a problem.  So, simply put, we're balancing our budget.  Ah, but in doing that, we're saying--Little bit more for pensions, little bit more for health care, although well below the national average, limit what's left in collective bargaining to the base salary--we capped it off at the CPI--and then we say, since there are some significant changes in the union, we allow each of our workers to have the choice, to really have true free choice as to whether he or she wants to be in a union, and we stop automatically deducting at the state and local level union dues out of their paychecks, so they can take the five- or six-hundred dollars or some cases teachers up to a thousand dollars and choose to give it to the union if they want or they can choose as many of them probably will to offset their health care and pension contribution.  That's what's at stake here. It's bold politically, as you will know, talking about it, but it's pretty modest when compared to the average taxpayer out there."
    By the way, on Monday, February 19, 2011, on The Rush Limbaugh Program (a nationally syndicated radio show), Rush Limbaugh noted that, Gerald McEntee, who heads the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (or AFSCME) union in Wisconsin makes about $480,000 a year and also gets covered for a lot of expenses, and I noted that the money that Gerald McEntee was being paid--for doing something or other--came from union dues, and, at the same time, Scott Walker--a governor of a state--made about a third of Gerald McEntee's pay (around 2007, the governor of Wisconsin made about $137,092*), and it seems to me those bigwigs of at least AFSCME do suck a lot of money out of the union members, and Scott Walker's final point that I have presented shows what union bosses have to lose--members who send in the dues.  [* = Knapp, Andrew.  "Govs' salaries range from $1 to $206,500."  Stateline, 15 May 2007.]

    On April 30, 2013, the FOX News Channel aired a television report with reporter Adam Housley and with an unidentified informant, a "special operator" in the U.S. military, and the "special operator" (a male) was not identified and had his identity concealed, which was done it seems to protect the informant from potential harm, and the focus of the report was on the "Benghazi Killings Scandal" [which is the name that I give the killing incident of September 11, 2012].  I list the unidentified informant as a "patriot."  One thing that the informant said in the report is: "...The problem is, you know, you got guys in my position, you got guys in, in special operations community who are, are still active, still involved, and they would be decapitated if, if they came forward with in, information that could affect high-level, um, commanders...."  The informant can be noted as the first military person to really come out a give hints at the problems with the U.S. government in relation to the "Benghazi Killings Scandal" (more of which can be learned by reading the document entitled The "Benghazi Killings Scandal": A Short Information-and-Status Report, which can be reached by using this link: Benghazi).

    Now that you have reached this point in the document, you might wonder how "counter-counter revolution," which is presented in the title of this document, fits in with the theme of this document.  The "counter-counter revolution" is the revolution that is underway to fight against the "counter-revolution," in essence, headed by Barack Obama, which is set to completely change the country from what it should be as shown in the founding documents of the country to what Barack Obama sees in his defective mind, which will certainly have aspects of communism and other dangerous types of political ideologies.  All individuals who fight to keep the United States of America structured as intended in The U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence are the patriots.


    Note: From time to time, I will update this document, or, as time goes on, I will put other patriots in the document, such as Sarah Palin, when there is material in statement form for me to put in.

- - - Bibliography - - -

Babington, Charles.  "GOP raps Dem for hushing insurers on Medicare." The Associated Press, 22 September 2009, 8:54:48 p.m.

Gazaway, Charles. "McConnell takes to Senate Floor about Humanas gag order."  WAVE-TV, 23 September 2009.

Miller, Joshua Rhett.  "California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo.", 6 May 2010.  (

Unruh, Bob.  "Egyptian official: U.S. president claims to be Muslim." WorldNetDaily, 14 June 2010, 10:07 p.m. Eastern.  (

- - - Additional materials - - -

For further reading, you should see Political
    Lessons for the Individual Woman and
    the Individual Man in the United States
    of America, which can be reached by hitting
    think link: Lessons.
For further reading, you should see THOUGHTS
    AND PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual
    woman and the individual man, which can be
    reaching by hitting this link: Logic.
For further reading, you should see A Collection of
    Words--Just Words--That Show  Dangerous
    People, which can be reached by using this
    link: Words.
For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Madness in a President and Other
    Matters in a Defective Mind, which can be
    reached at this link: Madness.
For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Rules of a Radical Destroyer: The
    Barack Obama Case, which can be reached
    by using this link: Radical Destroyer.
For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Frank Beckmann of WJR-AM Interviews
    Tom Lauria, an Attorney in Chrysler Mess, which
    can be reached at this link: WJR-AM.
For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations
    of Barack Obama, which you can reach by using
    this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the document
    for the individual woman and the individual
    man, which can be reached at this link: Thoughts.
To go to the main Web page of The Hologlobe Press,
    you may use this link:
To learn how many television news entities betrayed
    the American public in 2008 in relation to the
    election of November 2008, you should see the
    document entitled T.H.A.T.  #55, which can be
    reached at this link: T.H.A.T. #55.

Note: You should see my document entitled T.H.A.T. #58, which has information about actors who made a "pledge" to do things in relation to the Barack Obama administration.  For one, one actor said that he pledged to be a "servant to Obama."  That is a dangerous idea, and it is like how children of China were made to sing the praises of Mao, a communist, in the mid-1900s.  To see the document, you can use this link: T.H.A.T. #58.

Note: I recommend you get a copy of the book entitled Liberty  and Tyranny A Conservative Manifesto (which was written by Mark E. Levin) and read it fully, and after you read the book, which was released in March 2009, you should pass it on to other persons.

Note: This document is known as on the Internet.

Note: The first version of this document was posted on the Internet on May 21, 2009.