Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World

Eagle

Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Is Islam claimstaking America?
When area residents learned that the City Planning Commission had approved a planned mosque and Islamic center with a school and a swimming pool the furor began. No, we aren't talking about the Ground Zero Mosque in New York. This mosque, one of two being built in the Nashville, Tennessee area is being built in Murfreesboro, a Nashville suburb. The furor, likely fueled in part by the furor surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque, was triggered during the political primary season when Murfreesboro's Muslim community leaders announced the building of a 52,900 square foot mosque, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. The backlash was immediate.

According to Saleb M. Sbenaty, an engineering professor who is overseeing the mosque's expansion, Muslims in the Murfreesboro area have never experienced this level of hostility from the non-Muslim citizens of Murfreesboro before. Not even on Sept. 11, 2001. Shortly after the World Trade Center disaster Sbenaty—a Syrian Muslim—said he and his wife, who was wearing a hijab, were in the parking lot of a shopping center in Murfreesboro when they were approached by a small group of local residents who assured them that they had nothing to fear from Murfreeboroites who knew it was radical Muslim extremists who flew two 757s into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon and the fourth that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania in Stonycreek Township. Nearly three thousand Americans died on Sept. 11 and there were no random reprisals against Muslims (although the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] claims more than 1,700 attacks on American Muslims by Christian Americans took place from Sept. 11, 2001 through Feb. 2002 including 289 acts of physical violence and 166 reported cases of discrimination in the workplace).

In Murfreesboro, when the local Muslim community which had been holding worship in makeshift worship space—a one bedroom apartment and an office behind a Lube Express—for 30 years decided to construct a 52,900 square foot mosque on a $320 thousand piece of land for which they had no money to build, they lit a fuse that exploded during the primary election. To raise the money they needed to pay off the land and build their mosque, the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro launched a nationwide fundraising appeal...just like the Ground Zero Mosque—which, of course, means the Saudi royal family or some other Mideast Muslim "charity" is likely paying for the mosque in Murfreesboro since the Islamic Center in Murfreesboro "raised" $600 thousand from their appeal.

As the furor over the Ground Zero Mosque in New York intensified, the local Murfreesboro politicians running for their parties nominations for office used the debate, pro or con, in their talking points on the campaign trail as anti-Muslim sentiment began to grow—not only in Murfreesboro and Nashville, but all over the country. A Time Magazine poll taken on Aug. 26, 2010 revealed that 43% of Americans now have an unfavorable view of Muslims. (The percentage is probably much higher, but since it is politically incorrect to hate, dislike or mistrust a racial or ethnic minority, the majority of those surveyed likely kept their honest opinions to themselves.) Americans understand the Ground Zero Mosque is, in the view of the Muslims around the world, far more than a mosque and a community center. In the Islamic world, when Muslims defeat a nation, they build a mosque on the ashes of the defeated enemy's most revered spot. In our case, that revered spot was the nation's financial hub in lower Manhattan: the World Trade Center, since the "god" of the financiers is money.

Yet, as the Islamic world busied itself claimstaking America, the Christian population in Murfreesboro added 2 + 2 and discovered the answer was still four. Building a $360 thousand mosque in the quiet Nashville suburb of Murfreesboro for 250 Muslim families was, in their mind, the expansion of the Islamic victory mosque in New York City. While proponents of the Murfreesboro mosque argue that mosque opponents are displaying religious intolerance by protesting the construction of the mosque, Christians in Murfreesboro raised concerns about Islamic radicalism in their city. When Murfreesboroites protested the mosque with a completely nonviolent march, CNN covered it. One marcher told CNN affiliate WTVF, "In Islam, a mosque means we have conquered this country. And where are they? They're in the center of Tennessee. They're going to say, we've conquered Tennessee."

Murfreesboro corrections officer Kevin Fisher, a Republican running for the school board, who led the protest march against the mosque, said that those opposed to the mosque intend "...to contend every brick that's laid." Fisher, a Black American who said he has experienced racial intolerance in his life, added that "...This has nothing to do with racism or racial intolerance at all. It's about a difference of opinion. In America, that's okay. Religion. Race. These are just code words used to distract from the real issues. If Home Depot was burying bodies in the water supply I would be equally concerned." The reference to burying a body in the water supply stemmed from the Islamic Center burying a body on their recently purchased property "...without a casket or proper embalming." In point of fact, according to Doug Demosi, the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission Director, said the Islamic Center applied for permission and, since religious organizations are exempt from some rules, and, Demosi added, it doesn't appear any State regulations were violated. Demosi also said the center does not have approval for any other burials and the Planning Commission said it does not intend to allow a cemetery on the grounds.

Liberal members of the feminist socialist Middle Tennesseans for Religious Freedom that supports religious freedom for everyone except Christians (like the liberals in New York) claim that what is happening in Murfreesboro was, plain and simple, pure Islamophobia. Social progressives like Jewish New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe those protesting the Cordoba House Mosque are Islamophobes.

Hopefully New Yorkers understand that the Cordoba House Mosque is monument to what Islam views as their victory against the Great Satan in New York on Sept. 11, 2001. On Aug. 24, a defiant Mayor Bloomberg insisted that the mosque must be built near Ground Zero, declaring "...we must do what is right, not what is easy. And we must put our faith in the freedoms that have sustained our great country for more than 200 years." He made that statement at a Ramadan dinner at Gracie Mansion, adding there can be no middle ground when it comes to religious liberty."

Bloomberg insisted that building the mosque was the best way to fight terrorism. Bloomberg is wrong. His decision and the use of his office to let the Cordoba House Initiative erect a monument to Islam's "victory" in destroying the Great American Satan has angered not only New Yorkers but Americans all over the United States. And, it has nothing to do with Islamophobia. It has to do with common sense, patriotism and national pride. Hopefully the people of New York will end 3rd term mayor Bloomberg's political career not only as mayor but any elective office in the United States. Bloomberg's $17 billion fortune will not help him get elected if the people of New York simply refuse to cast their vote for him. Just because you're rich does not entitle you to office. Those who "serve" the people should be willing to do just that—serve, not rule. The American people got rid of rulers during the Revolutionary War.

If Bloomberg wants to hold political office after selling out the American people, perhaps he should move to Riyadh, Tehran or Baghdad. Bloomberg would like to be the governor of New York. New Yorkers need to make sure that never happens.

If you spend any time watching the Muslim community across the United States, you will be a first hand witness the attempt of the Islamic world to Islamize the United States with the help of social progressive politicians who [a] believe that one religion is no different than the next, and that any religion works since, in their view, there is no God anyway; and [b] made a pact with the Muslim world to keep Muslim oil flowing to the United States and, in violation of the Constitution, to create a national religion based on Shari'a law.

If we had been paying attention over the last few years we, as a nation, would have witnessed the attempt of the Muslim world to Islamize America city-by-city, county-by-county, mosque-by-mosque. In Nashville, two other mosques were initially funded. One was abandoned, the other was built. At the end of the first Iraq war under Bush-41 Nashville had become the "gateway city" for Muslim refuges from Iraq and Kuwait emigrating to the United States. Two decades later Nashville and its surrounding bedroom communities had become an oasis for Muslims. The Memphis Commercial Appeal reported in a 2008 article that Greater Memphis was the home of an estimated 10 to 15 thousand Islamics. The Memphis Islamic Center raised $800 thousand to buy the land their mosque sits on and another $3.65 million to build the mosque. But regardless of claimed membership that theoretically funded the financing of the mosques in Murfreesboro, Nashville and Memphis, the government of Saudi Arabia began financing the construction of mosques and Islamic schools in several countries.

The Saudi newspaper Ain al-Yaqeen reported that the Saudis have financed the construction of up to 2,000 mosques around the world. Currently there are 1,510 Islamic Centers or mosques in the United States, with several more in the planning or construction phase.

Among the mosques financed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are the Masjid Ibrahim Mosque in Kingman, Arizona, the Darul Islah Mosque in Teaneck, New Jersey, the King Fahd Mosque, built in 1998 in Culver City, California and the Islamic Cultural Center in Rome, Italy. The Culver City Mosque cost the Saudi government $8 million. The mosque in Rome? Fifty million. When you're competing with the Vatican, $8 million won't cut it. Eighty percent of the mosques in the United States have been build since 1980. Interestingly, 25% of the mosque attendees in the United States earn less than $20 thousand. 93% of the mosques in the United States provide cash stipends to the poor families in their congregations. In other words, in the United States, the Muslims buy converts. Mosque attendance has increased by 75% since 1975. Twenty-nine percent of those who attend the mosques in the United States are converts to Islam. The majority of these converts are racial minorities.

Sweden seeks WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange for questioning in molestation case
Swedish authorities announced on Friday, August 20, 2010 they are seeking WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a suspect in a molestation and possible rape case in Stockholm. Authorities issued a warrant for his arrest for rape on Friday, and then withdrew it on Saturday. The allegations of rape were first reported by the Swedish tabloid Expressions. When the story hit the paper, Assange responded to the allegations on WikiLeaks' Twitter page, stating the accusations were linked to his release of 77 thousand US military documents. Among them was a cache of records that revealed the names of hundreds of Afghan citizens who helped the Americans and their allies pinpoint Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds and capture Muslim extremist leaders in that country.

On Saturday, less than a day after issuing the warrant, Swedish authorities said the rape charge resulted from an unfounded allegation of rape. Police still want to question Assange about one other case involving the suspicions of rape and one accusation of sexual molestation. When she withdrew the rape warrant, Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne told the media she didn't "...think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." She did not address the status of the molestation allegation, which is a less serious charge that would not lead to an arrest warrant.

On his Twitter page, Assange wrote that "...[t]he charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing." Assange implied that the accusations were part of a dirty trick campaign against the WikiLeaks founder who has been strongly criticized by the Pentagon and by Barack Obama. "We were warned to expect dirty tricks. Now we have the first one...Expression is a tabloid. No one here has been contacted by Swedish police. Needless to say, this will prove hugely distracting."

Fearing that fellow traveler and White House resident Barack Obama was planning to have him extradited to the United States where he could be charged with revealing top secret US military documents, the 39-year old convicted Australian computer hacker, Assange, went to Sweden last week (where a couple of his WikiLeaks servers are located) to apply for a publishing certificate in Stockholm in order to take advantage of the laws in Sweden that protect whistleblowers.

When queried by the media on Friday when the rape charge was initially filed, Karin Rosander, a spokesperson for the Swedish Prosecution Authority confirmed that Assange is suspected of at least one count of rape and one charge of sexual molestation.

Assange, now 39, was born in Townsville, Queensland in 1971. His parents met at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration. His mother was so anti-establishment that she did not want her son to go to school believing it would instill an unhealthy respect for authority in her son. During his childhood he attended 37 different schools because his mother, who worked for a touring theater group, traveled throughout Australia during his growing years. Today, he lives the same nomadic life of his youth. He has no permanent, nor even temporary, address he calls his own. His personal possessions include a laptop computer and a rucksack of belongings. Assange lives on the hospitality of fellow travelers—social progressives around the world—who put him up for brief periods of time as he travels the globe. Those acquaintances, and the handful of well-to-do socialists who finance WikiLeaks, view the convicted computer hacker as a heroic crusader, which makes him a celebrity whenever he comes to town.

His mother introduced him to computers at an early age. With his sharp mind and an "outsider mentality," he entered the world of hacking, setting up a group that became known as International Subversives. Assange has been called the "Robin Hood of Hacking." Among the websites he has hacked are the US Department of Defense and NASA. Among file footage hacked by Assange is a helicopter cockpit video shows civilians shot in Baghdad. The video was hacked and prepared for release on WikiLeaks through the Icelandic Digital Freedom Society. While Assange claims the Department of Defense files he recently released—and the 15,000 files he is preparing to release—were given to him, it appears Assange has the ability to hack into the Department of Defense website at will, and it's just as likely that he secured the files himself as it is that someone with access to them gave them up. US authorities have charged Pfc. Bradley Mannings, 22, with disseminating the top secret video which they believe he turned over to WikiLeaks. Assange has said the files he released came from soldiers with whom he came into contact after publishing a vast database of army equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan. British Security Minister, Lady Pauline Neville-Jones admitted "...[w]e don't know how they got that material—it may be a combination of leaking of documents, but also one strongly suspects they have hacked into the systems as well...But, if you stop to think about it, military systems have to be secure because people's lives are at stake."

In 1989 the Australian government linked Assange to what the media called the "audacious attack" on NASA's computer. During the investigation, Assange monitored the police who were investigating him. He, or others in collusion with him, left messages for the detectives conducting the investigation on their computers. In December, 1995 Judge Leslie Ross of Melbourne's County Court, fined Assange $2,100 Australian dollars, telling Assange that the accused was driven by a desire to "...be empowered by his access to high security files."

The Berlin-based Wau Holland Foundation that manages the finances of WikiLeaks acknowledged that the fund received £330,000.00 thus far in 2010. The Foundation has issued checks totaling about £25,000.00 to Assange through the first half of this year. The Foundation added that they are compiling the financial records of WikiLeaks and will publish them when they are completed, adding that they have no way of knowing how much money is being donated through Iceland or other countries Assange visits. That money appears to go directly to Assange. WikiLeaks does not publish any statistics about money received or spent, but it claims to have raised about £655,000 since it was founded, adding that operating costs are about £131,000 per year. WikiLeaks noted that it will have to raise at least £390,000 per year if the handful of volunteers that currently donates it time are to be paid in the future.

Wau Holland, was born Herwart Holland-Moritz on Dec. 12, 1951. He was a co-founder of the Chaos Computer Club, the world's oldest computer hacking club. The hackers became world famous when they hacked into Germany's banking system and got 134 thousand Deutsche Marks. They returned the money the following day, advising the banks to increase their security to prevent hackers from looting their vaults. He then began to publish a computer hackers' magazine for club members. When Holland-Moritz died of a brain stem stroke on July 29, 2001, five club members formed the Wau Holland Foundation believing they had a social obligation to expose everything—without regard for the consequences. Holland-Moritz's family funded the startup of the tax exempt foundation with €62,000.

Assange noted that he recently hosted a seminar for the Socialist Democratic Party in Sweden. He further announced that he would write bimonthly columns for a leftwing Swedish newspaper.

Sarkozy party chief said Europe
must bring back border guards to
fight illegal immigration in the EU.
The online edition of the London Daily Mail reported on Aug. 12, 2010 that Xavier Bertrand, the Secretary-General of French President Nicholas Sarkozy's governing conservative party, UMP, said in an interview that the EU needs "...to put back coast guards and border guards" that used to protect the sovereign nation states of Europe from foreigners entering their nations illegally. The French, more than any other nation in the European Union, are suffering from a severe loss of national identity. France, like England, see themselves as "imperial peoples" since both countries were, at one time, the world's greatest empires. That fact has colored the national identities of both nations. France, which lost its imperial status after suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Nazis in World War II now finds itself being humiliated by what Sarkozy views as "illegal aliens" in France even though France is one of 25 nations within the European Union's free-travel zone. The free-travel zone was created by the Schengen Agreement which was signed by then President Francois Mitterrand, a socialist, committing France to an emigration open door policy that the French people did not want. Nor, for that matter, did the Dutch, nor the Germans, nor the Brits.

In Feb., 2010 Sarkozy called a 27-nation summit to halt illegal immigration in the European Union and, in particular, into France. The French president demanded that the EU seal its borders along the Mediterranean to prevent illegals from Muslim Asia Minor from entering Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Spain where migrant trafficking networks would transport them into France. At the end of the meeting, which was held in Brussels, the 27 interior ministers voted to implement a European police force similar to ICE (Immigration Control & Enforcement) in the United States. The EU immigration control police would bolster Frontex, the EU agency currently responsible for external border security for all of the EU nations.

More than any other nation in Europe, France is plagued with illegals from everywhere. In July Sarkozy was accused of "ethnic cleansing" by the French human rights organization, GISTI (Group for Information and Support To Immigrants). when he ordered the expulsion of thousands of illegal gypsies. A GISTI spokesman said the group wanted to stress its support "for equal rights between French people of all origins and foreigners or supposed foreigners." On March 1, 2010, GISTI announced the day would be called "24-Hours Without Us" to "...protest against the fate meted out to foreigners, legal or undocumented." (Why don't they call them what they are. They are illegal aliens. Since they have no legal right to be there, they are illegal.) Illegals, from wherever they came to wherever the arrived, need to be deported. GISTI told the European InterPress Service [IPS] that many essential jobs throughout France are done by immigrants (i.e., illegal aliens). (I suspect they use the same trite justification used by US politicians who favor amnesty in the United States: their illegals are only taking the jobs that no self-respecting Frenchman (or interchangeably, American) would do.) GISTI wanted every illegal in France to [a] not work that day and [b] not to consume any food or drink purchased from French stores or French restaurants. This was pretty much like the Hispanic protest to Arizona enacting an immigration law that would force Arizona officials to enforce federal immigration laws. In the one day they boycotted every business in the State, Arizonians said it was the best day in the State for years. Most noticeably, they said, everyone in the stores and restaurants spoke English. And while sales were off slightly, gains from the tremendous drop in shoplifting more than made up the profit difference.

Eric Besson, the French Immigration Minister told the immigration summit in Brussels that "...Faced with the worsening situation in the Mediterranean, which is the scene of daily irregular-immigration dramas, France has not ceased, since the summer of 2009, to alert the EU to the major challenges posed by the illegal migration networks in this strategic region for the Schengen Area. People are dying every day in the Mediterranean, anonymously, victims of the cynicism and the greed of modern day slavers. People are entering illegally every day into the Schengen Area from the Mediterranean, sometimes in a sincere search for protection, but most often without this motive."

Besson proposed 29 measures for the EU to vote on. He told the Immigration Ministers at the summit that France would like to see systematic operational cooperation between the EU and the countries within the union from which the migrants emigrate from or use as transit points. In particular, Besson said an enforcement agreement needed to be reached with Turkey and Libya from which most of the migrant-trafficking networks operate. In September of 2009 Besson called for the European Union to put together a plan of action to establish common land and sea patrols as well as to collect and share data about migrant traffickers after eight African migrants drowned off the coast of Morocco when their overloaded boat sank as it headed for Europe. Dozens of people, Besson noted, have died in their attempt to reach European countries and the prospect of a better life.

The French Coordination for the Right to Asylum [CFDA] (which is comprised of 20 groups including Amnesty International) who believe illegals from anywhere in the world have the right to emigrate to France, noted that the "right to asylum" is now being profoundly recast in Europe, with a "climate of suspicion" being created around those seeking refuge. "There should be no reason," No Borders spokesman Dan Rosenthal told IPS that the governments of Europe "...have created a connection between being a migrant and being a criminal. People should be able to go where they want to, and the money currently being spent on tightening borders, preventing immigration and detaining people could be used more wisely."

Rosenthal argued that most of the undocumented migrants in France come from war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan, the two countries that accounted for most of the asylum-seekers that arrived in the industrialized nations last year. Somalia, also in the grip of civil war, was the third largest source of asylum-seekers. All of these emigrants are Muslim. They are the faces you see on the news holding placards warning the Europeans they are about to experience their own 9-11, or signs that say: "Islam will dominate the world," or behead, kill, slay or butcher "...those who insult Islam."

When the French government expelled a group of undocumented migrants from an airport hanger in Calais recently, the French asylum group SoS Sans Papiers asked the question, "Why is there such aggression by the State against migrants forced to flee from wars, violence and misery?" Perhaps it is because all of these illegals are Muslims who immediately join up with radical Muslims in Europe and attempt to create the same types of violence in those nations they left behind in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia.

The question someone should be asking the asylum groups who believe illegals from anywhere in the world have an "inherent right" to asylum "on demand" because the country they wish to invade is more prosperous than the one they left is how asylum-seeking became an inalienable right in countries where civil rights do not exist? The right to prosperity is not an inalienable right—even in the United States. It is an inherent right only in the minds of communists who created that philosophy to justify stealing the wealth of the middle class thorugh taxation under the pretext of elevating the underclass as they reduce all people to serfdom.

What America offers through what few laws still protect the free enterprise system (which the social progressives have been trying hard to destroy since 1913), is opportunity. What each American does with that opportunity is up to them. No one owes them a living. We all live in imperfect nations.

Most of the emigrants who settled this nation in the 17th and 18th centuries were born under a monarchy they grew to hate. They didn't pack up and leave, expecting some other nation to take them in and provide them with a free living. Farmers, mechanics, preachers and teachers took up their muskets and fought a decade long revolution against a tyrant king, tyrant laws and tyrant taxes. In the end our forefathers won their liberty and shaped the greatest nation in the history of the world. Like the "migrants" who illegally enter France, those who sneak across our borders in the dead of night come here, they say, seeking opportunity. Yet, like those who illegally enter France and the other democratic industrialized nations of the world, once they arrive, they devote their efforts to changing the new nation into the country they chose to leave behind.

Obama insists he inherited what
will prove to be a crushing,
unsustainable deficit from Bush.
The Washington Post, the leftwing voice of the nation's capital, speaking as half of the bobble-head Siamese twins doll that champions everything-Obama, gave credence to Barack Obama's constant harangue that he inherited a $1.3 trillion debt from the Bush-43 Administration. The only president in modern history that could actually truthfully make that claim was President Ronald Reagan who inherited a prime interest rate of 21.5% from outgoing President Jimmy Carter—and an economy that was far worse than that which greeted FDR on March 6, 1933. In fact, when New York Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as the nation's 32nd president, he created the public relations strategy of blaming his predecessor for his own economic screw-ups. And Roosevelt, with the help of the liberal press, got away with it for 11-plus years, blaming the depression he created from the Recession of 1930 on former president Herbert Hoover—and taking credit for the creation of the banking failsafe systems that were put into place during his first term that were actually the brainchild of Hoover, who could not get them through the Democratically-controlled Congress in 1930. Even though history supports the view that the United States, like most of Europe, was coming out of the Recession of 1930 by the Election of 1932, Hoover had already become spoiled goods and it was easy for Roosevelt and Company (the leftwing media) to tar and feather him. The left was so sure that Roosevelt, who was bankrolled by the same bankers who caused the Stock Market Crash of 1929, was going to prevail on Nov. 7, 1932 that they were already taking their marching orders from him by late summer, 1932. The orders? Don't give Hoover an inch. What we need is a crisis, and more of it. Sound familiar?

When Obama spoke at a retreat of congressional Republicans in Baltimore on Jan. 29, 2010, Congressman Jeb Hensarling [R-TX] asked Obama if his "...new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25% of our economy?"

Obama shot back, saying "...when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I passed any law. What is true is that we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade." The rhetoric has not let up because Obama knows if you repeat a lie enough times people believe the lie and deny the reality of the truth. Particularly when the people's watchdog, the free press, does not speak up and call the liar to task for his lies.

Obama, who uses history as a playbook (since history verifies how the public will likely respond to the ploys of their national leaders), was called out on the practice by his media ally, the Washington Post, on June 12 in an article by Ben Pershing. Pershing aptly quoted a remark by New York Times reporter Peter Baker from a June 11 article (the other half of the bobble-head Siamese Twins doll). Baker noted that blaming the guy who came before doesn't work for long., noting that "...Obama wastes few opportunities to remind the country that the problems are not of his making...But at a certain point, a new president assumes ownership of the problems and finds himself answering for his own actions. For Mr. Obama...some advisors say that moment may be coming soon."

The question is: how did Obama manage to convince so many people that the generational debt this nation owes was Bush's making? Before we commence to the finger-pointing, let's make one thing clear from the gitgo. Debt is not created by the White House. Debt in created by Congress. Constitutionally, it's created by the House of Representatives. Constitutionally, all spending bills must originate in the House. The Senate may concur on them, but the House is responsible for spending...and the debt your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren get saddled with are gifts from the House of Representatives. So, regardless what spending bills the guy in the Oval Office wants is just that—a Christmas wish list—until the House of Representatives fills his stocking. Ultimately, the Constitution makes them responsible for the debt by giving them two year terms of office so the voters can fire them if they don't like the debt they are burdened with. And, the voters can demand that the new Congress repeal those spending measures—and fire them if they don't. Furthermore, if a politician campaigns on a promise to repeal spending laws and fails to keep his word, the politician can be recalled and removed from office. The American people need to understand their rights under the covenant called the Constitution of the United States.

When you look at "Bush-43 debt" you have to stop at 2007, because his Party—the GOP—lost the House and Senate in the midterm Election of 2006. In Jan. 2007, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi began to control the purse strings of America. In 2007, Bush-43 got so tough on spending, that when the House was putting together the omnibus appropriations bill of 2008, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid simply sat on it until 2009 because Bush-43 would have vetoed it. Instead, Congress bypassed Bush-43 and enacted continuing resolutions to keep the government running until they got a more spending-friendly guy in the White House. When Obama took office, Congress quickly passed a massive, pork laden spending bill to fund the government for 2009—without a single Republican vote. (By the way, a lot of pork—including a $4 billion gratuity under the Community Development Block Grant for ACORN—was stuck in that bill.)

Now, keeping in mind that Congress, not the White House, creates debt, let's take off the rose-colored glasses and look at the rising debt through a prism of honesty. On Jan. 7, 2009 (two weeks before Obama took office) the Congressional Budget Office projected the deficit for fiscal year 2009 at $1.2 trillion. (Note: this cannot be called Bush's debt since Congress refused to submit a budget for f2009, and used continuing resolutions to bypass the White House. Thus, the deficit spending for f2009 must lay at the feet of the Democratic majority in Congress who used continuing resolutions and not a law signed by Bush-43 to keep the spending alive in 2009.) Obama didn't think about that when he called it a Bush-43 $1.3 trillion deficit.)

Since that deficit was actually created by Congress and not the White House, we need to blame the House and Senate for the sleight-of-hand that created the spending. As I recall, Senator Barack Hussein Obama [D-IL] was one of those who voted to bypass Bush-43. So, I guess, it's rightly his deficit after all.

The Congressional Budget Office also reported the 10-year debt projection at $3.1 trillion. Obama said the projection was $8 trillion. He lied. He knew the programs he had initiated would push the debt throttle over $8 trillion, and he was covering his butt by anchoring down a "media figure" that would make it appear that the $8 trillion in long-term debt foreshadowed his Administration.

The Democrats own the deficits that began to accrue in 2007 since they owned Congress from that time. The Bush-43 deficits are those which accrued from 2001 to Jan., 2007 because that is the period of time his party ruled Congress and controlled the creation and flow of debt. Thus, Bush created a $400 billion deficit by the end of 2004, but began cutting back in 2005. In 2007, his deficit was only about $200 billion. The $450 billion deficit in 2008 belongs to Nancy Pelosi. The $1.85 trillion debt in 2009 rightly belongs to the Democrats since most of those pieces of legislation passed without any, or minimal GOP support, which was not needed by the Democratic super majority. Don't let Barack Obama play Roosevelt and blame his predecessor for his bad social progressive spending habits.y.