Ronald Reagan: “A Time For Choosing”

Change the numbers to trillions and the names of those mentioned and Reagan’s speech in the Fall of 1964 could be given today.  His remarks about liberalism are as true today as they were then.

Unfortunately, I believe America is at a crossroads…”a time for choosing”.

It is time to choose whether we wish for a bleak future for ourselves and families through crushing debt and massive spending or whether we want a massively reduced government that lives within its means.

It is time to choose whether we will respect our traditional allies or continue to undermine them while enabling and propping up totalitarian regimes across the globe.

It is time to choose whether we will continue to allow the scourge of “multiculturalism” to eliminate our borders and to allow mini-cultures and laws outside of our own system or will be seal our borders, abide by the framework of our Constitutional law, and call out radical Islam and illegal immigration for what it is.

It is time to choose whether we embrace the notions of individual freedom and liberty, as our Founders did, or will we continue to allow the decay of liberty in exchange for a collectivist society that is led by elites who never reap the “rewards” of such a welfare state.

It is time to choose whether we will continue to embrace those who ignore the Constitution in favor of their own set of standards or will we continue to respect the wisdom and intent of our Founders.

Reagan says it all so much better than I can…. (UPDATE:  Sarah Palin says it well, too!!)

It is a long speech, but so well worth listening to and understanding that the principles that Reagan espoused are the same ones we should be talking about today.

Happy 100th Birthday, Ronald Reagan.  America needs another like you!


Obama and the Left’s absurdity on abortion, Gosnell, baby murder, and “family matters”

Last week, the ghastly murders of babies born alive was unveiled in the office of abortionist Kermit Gosnell.  Of course, unlike the evil nutcase in Tuscon, for whom right-wing thought and Sarah Palin were blamed by the left for his actions, the case with Gosnell in Philadelphia has been largely watered down if not outright censored by the media.  Or worse yet, you evil taxpayers are to blame for it!!!

Ace of Spades notes the liberal gymnastics rationale you must believe in order to defend their cause of abortion and claim that Gosnell’s atrocities are NOT about abortion, but blame everything else on Sarah Palin and the right:

 …A shooting isn’t a shooting, it’s about right-wing rhetoric, but a story about a gonzo abortion murderer aided and abetted by pro-abortion state officials turns out to not be a story about either abortion or murder or the high government officials the grand jury says aided and abetted the crimes, but about… access to quality health care for the poor.

Read the Grand Jury report here  if you can stomach reading the evil that was administered at the hands of Gosnell.   From Michelle Malkin, the briefest description of murder covered up by abortion-approving officials:

But the grand jury itself pointed out that loosened oversight of abortion clinics enacted under pro-choice former GOP governor Tom Ridge enabled Gosnell’s criminal enterprise – and led to the heartless execution of hundreds of babies. Mass murder got a pass in the name of expanding “access” and appeasing abortion lobbyists. As the report made clear: “With the change of administration from [pro-life Democrat] Governor Casey to Governor Ridge,” government health officials “concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.”

Of course, the media doesn’t see fit to link the actual depravity of “live-birth” abortion and those who perform them with the left-wing– upon whose shoulders this atrocity was enabled.  If not for the numbing politically correct influences of the abortion industry and its crusaders, the atrocities of Gosnell may have been reported or never would have occurred.  

From the National Review editorial:

This procedure, sometimes called a “live-birth abortion,” is illegal. But not thanks to President Obama. As a state legislator in Illinois, he argued that the law should offer no protection to neonates if they had been delivered before viability. He said that protecting them would violate Roe v. Wade and undermine the right to abortion. What looked like infanticide to most people was for him, it must be inferred, a “private family matter.” When Gosnell applied his scissors to pre-viable children, he was, on Obama’s terms, merely exercising a cherished freedom.

And, really now, do you think Gosnell is alone in his evil deeds in this country while cowardly “officials” look the other way?  I highly doubt it.

Well, Obama had a lot to say on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade…the day that led to the late term live abortions of the kind that Gosnell frequently performed:

“I am committed to protecting this constitutional right,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.

I want to know where in the Constitution it states that the lives of the unborn may be sacrificed on the altar of a “woman’s choice” and political correctness?  Where is that found?

Obama sickeningly continues:

“I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”

Mr. Obama, the father of two young daughters, called on Americans to “recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

I guess those same daughters when in the womb or born alive and then murdered don’t count.


Mr. Obama said the 1973 Supreme Court ruling “affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

And because Obama cares so much about the lives of our children and choices for women, here is what he had to say about the (sometimes) forced live-birth abortions performed by Gosnell and the tiny victims he murdered by a few snips to the spinal column after they were born ALIVE:


Yep, the Obaminable One has not at this time seen fit to speak out on behalf of the women abused and mutilated at the hands of Gosnell nor of the murder of live babies at the hands of the evil man.

The irony of the Obama’s inserting themselves into our healthcare and even our food choices, but not into the atrocities of baby murder, is lost on many who follow the left’s lack of moral compass on this issue.

One commenter at The National Review  portrayed it best:

Obviously Barack and Michelle do not consider choosing to give your child Cheetos on occasion to be a “private family matter”. What happens in your 12 year old child’s womb is private, even from the parents, but what’s included in her lunch? Not so much.

The absurdity of this belief system is abundantly clear and deeply revolting.

May God Bless those faced with unplanned pregnancies and may He speak to them about the value of the life of those little ones they carry. 

 And may God speak to the hearts of every American in an effort to end this holocaust we’ve forced upon the most innocent and tiny of Americans.

Myths about the Ground Zero mosque and Obama’s outrageous defense of it

Obama has finally opened his pie hole on the issue of the Ground Zero mosque.  For weeks, Democrats and administration officials have led us to believe that the decision to allow the mosque at Ground Zero was a local issue only.  You know, as if the attacks of 9-11 orchestrated and performed by Islamic men in the name of Allah, was just a “New York thang“. 

Of course, Obama’s latest defense of the mosque is no surprise to anyone who has followed the Muslim Sympathizer-in-Chief and his words and actions regarding Islam, Islamic terrorism, and the coddling of Muslim countries who are not allies to the United States. 

August 13: President Barack Obama hosts an iftar dinner, the meal that breaks the dawn-to-dusk fast for Muslims during the holy month of Ramadan, in the State Dining Room at the White House in Washington, on Friday. (Source: AP)

With Obama’s decision to rub this mosque into the psyche of America-loving citizens, he did so while celebrating Ramadan with a room full of Muslims in the White House for the Iftar dinner.  Here is a portion of what Obama had to say

The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. 

But let me be clear….. 

BUT…BUT….there’s always  a “BUT” with this President, particularly when it comes to defending Americans and/or our way of life.  He continues…. 

…..As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure. 

Then, as all equivocating fence sitters will do after the firestorm of Americans protesting his stand….Obama tried to “clarify” his comments the next day

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding,” he said.” 

Well, then, Mr. President, is it right or is it wrong to build there?  You’ve already placed yourself in the debate…we are all wanting to know ….especially Sarah Palin. 

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook post

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.  

– Sarah Palin 

My, oh my….To. The. Point. 

Which leads us to those myths regarding the Ground Zero mosque… 

Myth #1 – Support for building of the mosque is about religious freedom:   

As many have pointed out, counter to Obama’s words, this is not about religious freedom…this is about an act of war and about respecting that “hallowed ground” for which Obama spoke.  This is about sensitivities to Americans and their loss, not about defending the sensitivities of a religion that has been supposedly hijacked by extremists. ( I say “SUPPOSEDLY hijacked” because one rarely sees the “peaceful” Muslim that speaks out against the horrendous transgressions of the “extremists”.  Many Muslims even debate their allegiance to America as Muslims.) 

Mr. President, here is what we are talking about with “hallowed ground”….From Charles Krauthammer

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz). 

When we speak of ground zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there – and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated. 

Myth #2 – This is about a “peaceful Islam” working to build bridges, as Imam Rauf claims. 

Peaceful? As Douglas Murray at The Daily Beast had to say

The very idea of building a mosque there is a dangerous sign of Muslim demands on Western societies, says British authority Douglas Murray—and it shows that the U.S. must make a stand. 

“Islam is a religion of peace.” That is what every Western leader says every time a Muslim sets something off. 

They never tell us which ones they think are the violent religions. But for Islam it’s a win-win. Knock down a tower and everyone in government says how terrific Islam is. Build a tower and everyone in government says how terrific Islam is. Either way it’s a gain for Islam. 

And as George Jonas at points out

The question to ask is: Can any group genuinely believe that building a mosque two blocks from where jihadists pulverized 3,000 New Yorkers nine years ago will promote cross-cultural understanding between Islam and the West? 

If the answer is yes (God knows, some people believe anything) the next question is: Having observed their New York neighbours’ actual reaction to their plan, do they believe it still? 

This mosque appears to be about conquest.  Just ask the Christians of the 8th to 10th centuries who were overrun by Muslims who then converted their churches to mosques as a sign of conquest.   One such example happened in Cordoba, Spain.  

What is the name of the initiative at Ground Zero?  The CORDOBA Initiative or Cordoba House. (At least until the name was changed to “Park51” after the real meaning of Cordoba House has hit the mainstream.) 

In many ways the construction of this Ground Zero mosque reeks of efforts for continued Islamization of America:  to lie (taqiyya), conquer (9-11), symbolize conquest (as in Cordoba), and implement laws (Sharia) that are counter to the very Constitution that Obama has touted in building the mosque.   A letter to the editor at the Washington Times best conveys this view

Radical Islam has no tolerance or respect for people of other faiths or creeds, especially Christians and Jews, Americans and Israelis. Its purpose is to subdue non believers and force them to live under Islamic law, Shariah. That is precisely its aim in the United States and the rest of the Western world – and a mosque at ground zero would help it do exactly that. It would move Islamization in the United States and elsewhere forward by leaps and bounds. 

Radical Muslims consider conquered territory and people to be forever under the sway of Islam. Placing a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site, particularly a mega-mosque like the one being advocated, would enable them to see New York as conquered territory and view it as a bridgehead leading to the subjugation of the entire United States. The city is America’s most prominent and is one with a very large Jewish population. A clearer message could not be sent. 

Of course, New Yorkers can send a clear message of their own by preventing the mosque from being constructed. They would be saying that they are not willing to accept the erosion of their values and way of life, that Islamization will be fought and that America is not an Islamic nation and will never become one. 

One thing is very clear…..Imam Rauf, the Imam of the new mosque, and one who has been embraced by Obama and his State Department (with your tax dollars), is not one to be trusted on issues of Sharia law and imposing Islamic standards onto America. 

From American Thinker, we find that Imam Rauf supports Sharia law and different ways to produce an Islamic State

…..when Rauf speaks in Arabic, he contradicts what he says to his English-speaking audience. ……. He goes on to say that “Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing.” Finally, Rauf says “it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of sharia that are required to govern.” 

Religious freedom is an American value for sure.  But this mosque is about war, Islamization, history, Islamic law and lying to gain a bigger foothold in America for Islam.

Myth #3 – Being against the mosque makes your view against the Constitution  

Obama would have you to believe that this is solely about denying some religious rights to Muslims.  But the point is that, via a recent CNN poll, 68% of Americans are against building this mosque.  It is simply the WRONG thing to do, particularly if you are an Imam touting it for “building bridges and relationships.” 

The imam and his followers do have a right to worship via their faith in this country.  And, yes, they have a right to build a mosque.  But just as any other commercial, religious, or residential structure being built in America, it is still subject to zoning rights, and in many cases, hearings on the appropriateness of the structure.  Granted, the NYC Council has approved the building, but to the Constitutional point and the “rights” pointed out by Obama, Americans are opposed to it because of the location and the act of war perpetrated by followers of Islam.  They are not opposed to other mosques in other appropriate places.  

In other words, Mr. President, this isn’t about Americans denying the free exercise of faith, it is about denying an act of War to be rubbed into our faces in a place where thousands of our fellow citizens were murdered. 

They may have a right to build a mosque…..but, at Ground Zero, it is the WRONG thing to do.    

And conversely, Obama is touting the Constitution when it suits his purposes (ie. being in support of the mosque at Ground Zero).  But where is the reverence for that same document when dealing with almost every other issue for which Obama wants to control us?  

From Laura Armstong at the Marietta Daily Journal…she says it best

While his wife is busy, when not vacationing, telling moms and kids what to eat and how to cook it, he says we shouldn’t restrict the building of a mosque just feet from the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center. 

While his party outlaws our rights to smoke, cook with partially hydrogenated oil, buy our favorite 100 watt light bulbs or choose our own medical insurance plan, he says we should not outlaw a 15-story building, a supposed place of worship, that will rise like a middle finger from the destruction in lower Manhattan and has likely been bankrolled by terrorist sympathizers and anti-American Muslim groups planning to make the United States their next experiment in creeping Sharia law. 

As he tells us to turn down our thermostats, remain stoic through yet more job loss and economic pain and suck it up when our taxes skyrocket in 2011, and as he excoriates American institutions such as Wall Street and Midwesterners who “cling to their guns and religion,” He talks tough about kicking a– – of the capitalist, CEO variety. 

But when addressing the dangerous and surreptitious enemy who’s trying to stick us in the eye, yet again, he speaks with gentle tolerance and invokes their “constitutional rights.” 

But as the blogger “Rhymes with Right” so intelligently point out, why didn’t Obama take the opportunity in his Iftar speech to “teleprompt” some thoughts into their minds about our rights and Constitution?  After all, wouldn’t the son and stepson of Muslims clearly understand those freedoms that are not so inherent to Islamic politics and religion? 

…. If, as this son and stepson of Muslims seems to imply, he is all about religious freedom, why didn’t he take the opportunity to also come out in favor of religious freedom in the Muslim world? You know, like the repeal of blasphemy laws that are used to suppress the speech of non-Muslims, the right of non-Muslims to build houses of worship on the same basis that Muslims may build mosques, and the freedom of non-Muslims to worship publicly, as well as the freedom on Muslims to exercise their human right to leave that faith and embrace another (or none at all). 

It would be laughable if not so serious.   Confederate Yankee sums it up best with regards to what is really happening at Ground Zero and what exactly Obama supports

There are rights, and there are rights. Mass murderers never have the right to prance and pose over the remains of their victims. If Barack Obama doesn’t understand that, he simply is not fit to be President, and is barely worthy of being called a citizen. 

Myth #4 – The area where the mosque is to be built is not at Ground Zero 

And just for the record….some have incorrectly tried to state that this mosque is being built two blocks away from Ground Zero.  Well that two blocks away is part of Ground Zero…as many have pointed out, including, a portion of the airplane landed on the very building that marks the spot of the new mosque. 

And, as “Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere” at Nice Deb, so clearly stated

Look at the pictures from that day.  Look at the reach of that dust cloud…that dust that was all that remained of two skyscrapers containing 3000+ people.  Any place that dust reached is the resting place of people killed in the name of Islam, and they don’t deserve the insult of a mosque and calls to prayer over them, now or ever.  

Here is the location of the Ground Zero Mosque…check it out for yourself. 

Aerial photo of World Trade Center Ground Zero following Sept. 11 attacks. Red square to right of Ground Zero marks former Burlington Coat Factory and proposed location of Cordoba House. (Courtesy of AIPNEWS.COM)

Americans are correct in so many ways to oppose this mosque….Keep up the opposition.   It is a disgrace to all Americans, particularly those who died that morning in 2001.

Quote of the day: A Tale of Two Boobs

Quote of the day courtesy of Russ at Ace of Spades:

” The left is focused on the two boobs under Sarah Palin’s blouse, while the right is focused on the two boobs sitting in the Oval Office and in whatever broom closet they’ve converted to an office for Sheriff Joe Biden. Which strategy do you think will pay dividends in November?”

(H/T on Captain Kick-A$$ and photo: Nice Deb

Of course the Left wants to make a big deal out of one picture of Palin and her ample right-wing chest so that they don’t have to think about her success at endorsing conservative candidates….as was shown on Tuesday.

I’d take a beautiful, accomplished 36D female conservative who loves America…over “Captain Kick-A$$” anyday.

Palin hammers home Obama’s incompetence on oil spill

Today Obama finally held a press conference after 300+ days since the last one. Of course, it contained the obligatory “Bush’s fault”, “not my fault”, and a dig at Sarah Palin.

Obama had this to say today about “Drill, Baby, Drill“:

“The fact that oil companies now have to go a mile under water and then drill another three miles below that in order to hit oil tells us something about the direction of the oil industry. Extraction is more expensive and it is going to be inherently more risky. And so that’s part of the reason you never heard me say, ‘Drill, baby, drill!

Not only is this a slam at Palin and her sensible stance that we must drill in order eliminate the need to be beholden to foreign oil, but he also mischaracterizes WHY oil companies have been forced to drill 50 miles off the coast.  It’s for the same reasons they can’t drill in ANWR and domestically…the environmentalist lobby.

Back to Palin….she doesn’t take anything that President “Plug the D*%m Hole” Obama says while sitting down.   Palin added this Facebook post this evening, just hours after Obama’s press conference and his attack on Palin:

Nearly 40 days in, our President finally addressed the American people’s growing concerns about the Gulf Coast oil spill. Listening to today’s press conference, you’d think the administration has been working with single-minded focus on the Gulf gusher since the start of the disaster. In reality, their focus has been anything but singular to help solve this monumental problem. 

Then Sarah Palin asks:

If the President really was fully focused on this issue from day one, why did it take nine whole days before the administration asked the Department of Defense for help in deploying equipment needed for the extreme depth spill site?

Why was the expert group assembled by Energy Commissioner Steven Chu only set up three weeks after the start of this disaster?

Why was Governor Jindal forced more than a month after the start of the disaster to go on national television to beg for materials needed to tackle the oil spill and for federal approval to build offshore sand barriers that are imperative to protect his state’s coastline?

Why was no mention of the spill made by our President for days on end while Americans waited to hear if he grasped the import of his leadership on this energy issue?

Why have several countries and competent organizations who offered help or expertise in dealing with the spill not even received a response back from the Unified Area Command to this day?

And more of Palin laying the wood to Obama….

Listening to the President, you get the impression he is continually surprised by the inability of various centralized government agencies to get more involved and help solve problems. His lack of executive experience might explain this because he is apparently unaware that it’s his job as a chief executive to make sure they do their jobs and help solve problems.

The fundamental problem at the core of this crisis is a lack of responsibility. (I risk the President taking my comments personally, but they’re not intended to be personal; my comments reflect what many others feel, and we just want to help him tackle this enormous spill problem.) There’s a culture of buck-passing at the heart of this administration that has caused the tragedy of a sunken oil rig to turn into a potential disaster.

The 1990 Oil Pollution Act was drafted in response to the Exxon-Valdez spill in my home state. It created new procedures for offshore cleanups, specifically putting the federal government in charge of such operations. The President should have used the authority granted by the OPA – immediately – to take control of the situation. That is a big part of what the OPA is for – to designate who is in charge so finger-pointing won’t disrupt efforts to just “plug the d#*! hole.” But instead of immediately engaging with this crisis, our President chose to spend precious time on political pet causes like haranguing the state of Arizona for doing what he himself was supposed to do – secure the nation’s border. He also spent much time fundraising and politicking for liberal candidates and causes while we waited for him to grasp the enormity of the Gulf spill.

Now that the American people are calling him out on his lack of engagement with this disaster, the buck-passing is in full swing – and, unbelievably, his administration is still looking to blame his predecessor. Amazingly, even those of us who support energy independence for America are the brunt of some buck-passing.

He suggested today that a “culture of corruption” at the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) was solely the previous administration’s responsibility and that the failure of the inspection system was a failure of that administration. That is false. The MMS has been his responsibility since January 20, 2009.

The MMS director who resigned today, Elizabeth Birnbaum, was appointed by his administration. And the most recent inspection of the oil rig took place a mere 10 days before the explosion – also very much on his watch, not President Bush’s.

You can read the rest of her post here including her calls for what should be done.

Go Palin!

Pic of the Day: Tea Party Barbie

This is great…and what a great role model for little girls she would be.

(Source: Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review)

I’m kind of like Pundit & Pundette, though….with Tea Party protesters that look like Barbie, you would think Bill Clinton might just enjoy himself at a Tea Party! 

Of course, with beauties like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, you’d think Bill Clinton would be a Republican, too.   But then again, he probably doesn’t go for the ladies with brains. 🙂

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin start in Tulsa “Taking our country back”!

(Source: Tulsa World)

I attended the Taking Our Country Back tour in Tulsa on Saturday featuring Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.  I have a froggy throat today to prove it.

What a wonderful time listening to two patriots extolling the values of our Founders and the lasting words of our Constitution.  

  I was personally excited to see Sarah Palin…she is an extraordinary woman in spite of the nasty and lying attacks against her.  Tulsa gave her a standing ovation when she came in.

I was emotional watching the tribute to Oklahoma’s fallen soldiers while Palin greeted the family of one of the lost.

Perhaps best was Glenn Beck’s speech about INDIVIDUAL freedom, not collective freedom.  His speech on the Statue of Liberty was also something to rouse and renew your love of country.

From the Tulsa World:

TULSA, OK — Two of the country’s most famous and controversial conservative superstars kicked off their new speaking tour Saturday in Tulsa — “Taking Our Country Back Tour.”

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor who was the Republican nominee for vice president last year and now a Fox News contributor, delivered their message to a crowd of 4,000 people inside the Tulsa Convention Center.

(Source: Tulsa World)

Palin says expanded government and growth in federal spending will hurt the country. 

She says Washington is disconnected from the rest of America, arguing that Congress is ignoring the demands of the people to stop expanding government programs.

Palin told the audience that Americans should remember that the government works for them and not the other way around.

It’s a message that resonated with her fans.

“I just think it’s all wrong in Washington DC right now,” said Joan Spengler.

“I think Sarah Palin is controversial because she’s a woman, but she stands for everything that I believe in, that I was raised to believe in,” said David Hanson.

Palin said she and others who share her views understand what those politicians are doing, don’t like it and are fighting it. 

Healthcare was a hot topic. Beck argued that the democratically controlled Congress will push through reform, despite the country’s massive debt.

“$107 trillion – that’s for your Medicare, and Medicaid and Social Security, you know, the things that they want to expand. It is impossible to expand it. It is impossible to afford what we already have,” said Beck.

Palin criticized both President Barack Obama, whose name produced boos from the audience, and leaders of Congress.

Gateway Pundit also blogged on this event.  See a news video there.