After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.
Some of the most prominent and respected handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House — not enough to provide the 40 seats necessary to return the GOP to power but enough to put them within striking distance.
The Obama administration doesn't need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to silence the opposition, all they need to do is attack local radio stations and impose impossible fines to do it.
And if Mark Lloyd, Obama's "Chief Diversity Officer" has his way, that's what's going to happen. Not by reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine, but, doing so by imposing fees that would financially break a broadcasting company and he would also do it by threatening local radio stations.
The Fairness Doctrine was created in 1949 by the Federal Communications Division that made companies with broadcasting licenses to present controversial political issues in a fair and balanced way. Back in those days there were only three stations broadcasting news and political topics and the Fairness Doctrine was necessary to present fair and balanced points of view. In 1987, the FCC did away with it and placed broadcasting into the market place and since then, broadcasting companies have either failed or succeeded based on consumer support or the lack of it. Essentially, this means that if you don't like what you are hearing or seeing then you can change the channel.
Politicians, both Democrat and Republican, have stated repeatedly that reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine is not going to happen. Back in March, Harry Reid said, “The Fairness Doctrine, what a ghost that doesn’t exist. None of us want to go back to the way it was before. It is an issue they brought up to talk about. No one wants to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine, Democrats or Republicans.”
The month prior, Senator Jim DeMint proposed an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights Act that would permanently ban reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine. The amendment passed 87-11 and Reid voted for the amendment. However, Dick Durbin proposed a separate amendment that says certain affirmative actions are required of the FCC, including actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest. This amendment also passed, on a vote of 57-41 and Harry Reid voted for it.
Conservative talk radio sees Dick Durbin's amendment as a means to shut them down. But, his amendment isn't what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck among others are worried about. They are more concerned about Mark Lloyd, a Saul Alinskyite who's recent rhetoric smacks of fascism, communism and all those other isms that this country can do without.
In his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America”, Lloyd called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.
Glenn Beck did a piece on his show and this disgusting reprobate said this:
And it doesn't stop with Mark Lloyd. Senator Rockefeller has introduced S. 773 Cybersecurity Act, which gives the president the power to shut down the Internet in the private sector in the event of an "emergency". What classifies as an emergency can by anyone's guess, but, suffice it to say that this is just another means of clamping down on opposing point of view.
So, it goes something like this: Mark Lloyd thinks that there is too much free speech and wants to curb that pesky First Amendment right and Rockefeller takes it a step further and wants to give the president power to shut down the Internet in the private sector in the event of an "emergency". Recalling the outrage over the Patriot Act the silence is deafening about these issues.
Sarah Palin was mocked and criticized when she likened some language in the health care reform bill as "death panels", yet democrat law makers removed the language from the bill. Even though nobody has asked how they removed something that supposedly never existed, it seems that the language is already in another bill, on page 151, called HR 1, which contains a massive $1.1 billion to Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
The FCCCER is the product of former Health and Human Services nominee, Tom Daschle. However, before the bill was passed, former Lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey wrote about it in length. The purpose of this council, according to Tom Daschle and by extension President Obama's, is to allow an unelected, bureaucratic body to make the rough decisions of rationing health care. Thus, Daschle argues that Americans should be more like sheeple in Europe who meekly accepts "hopeless diagnoses."
McCaughey states:
Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.
And guess who is on this council? Why, none other than Ezekiel Emanuel. He tries to justify his position by asserting:
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.
I have always said that the language in the 1017 page monstrosity is not what people should be worried about, but, what language is not in it. The bill is vague at best and that's for a reason. If this gets passed, then the bill will have to be implemented by bureaucrats that will have to insert regulations to make it function and this is where the nightmare is.
The President's Regulatory czar, Cass Sustein is going to play a huge role defining what the government's role will be in controlling medical care. Sustein wrote a paper in 2003 for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that life varies in value. To be more specific, Sustein pushes the idea of "quality adjusted life years", which is a government statistic that gives preference to human life. What this means is that if the government decides that a person's life is not worth living, then it's the duty of the individual to come to terms with it and die in order to free up welfare payments for the young and strong.
So, if you think that there still isn't any "death panels", think again. It was already passed.
As questions swirl whether British Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid a dictator's ransom when he released the Lockerbie bomber last week, the Libyan strongman's son said it was "obvious" that efforts to free the convicted killer were tied to lucrative contracts with the oil-rich state. Read the rest at FoxNews
Since HR 3200 is the Holy Grail of progressivism, it's largely predicated on the false premise that there are 47,000,000 Americans that are uninsured. As I noted in a previous article, once you whittle down the numbers, you begin to see that it's more like 8,4000,000.
However, it seems that the CDC doesn't quite agree.
Dr. Thomas Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a C-SPAN interview taped Wednesday:
"Everything we've seen in the U.S. and everything we've seen around the world suggests we won't see that kind of number if the virus doesn't change."
So why the inflated numbers from the WH?
Simple. The contentious HR 3200 is suffering from unpopularity because Americans are not as stupid as state run media and the Obama administration think. What better way to reinforce their premise by making a wild assertion, such as dire predictions of death from the Swine Flue?
A United Nations official in a department that promotes "ethics, transparency and accountability" falsified his permanent address to illegally obtain what could amount to tens of thousands of dollars in family allowance and housing funds that normally go to poor and moderate-income citizens in his native France, according to investigators there.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, the longtime Massachusetts lawmaker whose personal tragedies along with his professional triumphs and losses unfolded in the public eye, has died at his home in Hyannis Port after battling a brain tumor. He was 77.
The overthrowing of a countries government isn't something new; it's been going on throughout history. The United States of America and the idea of a free, representative government is only an infant compared to other countries of the world and its very foundation is under assault.
To be an American does not define what or who you are. To be an American means to be part of an idea; the idea to have life, liberty and to pursue happiness without interference of government. People fought and died in order for this idea to happen over 230 years ago and to this very day this idea has been the gold standard of what it means to be a country. Indeed, The United States of America has its flaws, but, in my opinion, a country is measured by how many people are trying to leave it to seek a better life, rather than staying.
And as far as I know, there isn't anyone I'm aware of trying to leave the USA to seek a better life. But, I do see people trying to get in.
Ronald Reagan said it best:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. 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 what it was once like in the United States when men were free.
What he was saying is that freedom should never be taken for granted. It must be safeguarded and when under assault, it must be fought for to protect it and if we don't, our children will most likely not experience what freedom is.
Unfortunately, the assault on our freedom doesn't necessarily mean that it must come from another country wishing to do us harm. A threat to our way of life, our idea, can come under attack from within. What if I were to tell you that there are certain organizations in this very country who's very existence is to take over and reshape our country and its very foundation? Not only that, but to do it by using the Constitution and our laws?
There are several of these organizations, however, right at the top of the list is the Tides Center, a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization. Tides Center seems to be the head of this multi-tentacled beast and it has launched the Apollo Project, which is intertwined with every leftist organization in the country.
So, what is Tides Center and the Apollo Alliance Project?
Created in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides is supposed to be a sort of philanthropy that grants money to other organizations by using what is referred to as "donor-advised" grants, which means that the money is spent as the donor requires. In practice, it often obscures the sources of these donated millions and makes it nearly impossible to figure out how this money is being used. Even though the IRS insists that what they are doing is within the law, the practice of passing money through an organization and then obscuring how that money is being used can be construed as money laundering.
What I mean is that when other foundations and organizations give money to Tides, they are not required to tell the IRS how that donated money is being used. When it comes time to file their taxes, Tides has to document where the money went, but, not where the money came from.
Tides puts money in their coffers by extracting a handling fee from grants that pass through their organization. Even though some of the money is awarded to other organizations as donor-advised grants, it's impossible to know whose money is being spent for which grants. Other funds are granted to kick start other organizations and foundations to assist with administrative support. In this instance, Tides is using our tax laws to their advantage in that it provides a blanket tax exempt designation for its grantees and projects. Their existence is predicated on the premise that the law allows one tax-exempt group to “lend” its exemption to another organization.
And this tax exempt hitchhiking has never been challenged in a court of law as far as I know. What Tides is doing is against the law because no organization can transfer its tax exempt status to another and if someone pushes hard enough, it may be the key to their undoing.
Many consider philanthropic support of these organizations as Americas best kept secret for the most radical of activist groups, as long as there are places like Tides the money will continue to flow freely. The groups that operate under Tides' umbrella are not stupid and are funded to last for a very long time and here are some examples of how they do it:
Profits made by Rainforest Crunch flavored ice cream was earmarked for save the earth charities. What they didn't divulge was that 20% of it went to Tides.
eGrants.org was created in 1999 by Tides. Though it may look innocuous, activists with some skill can privately donate money in any amount they desire that's tax deductible.
Drummond Pike and two of his friends started a profit making scheme called the Working Assets and Funding Service in 1985. A two percent cut of their profits is sent to Tides.
Just to show you how despicable Working Assets is, consider that in 1999 they were putting propaganda inserts in their phone bills sent to their customers. The insert urged its customers to call their representatives in Congress and urge support for a “Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act.” Their "reasoning" was for a call to have “Stringent food testing needed to identify GE foods’ health risks.” However, Working Assets conveniently forgot to mention that genetically modified foods are already tested extensively by the Food and Drug Administration, for an average of over 10 years.
To put a strain on credulity even more, they called for a ban on the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, by making the wild and false claim that “mounting evidence” indicated that such practices exposed humans to additional health risks. The National Academy of Sciences refuted this absurd claim when they stated that they were, “unable to find data directly implicating subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics in livestock with illnesses in people.” The NAS also stated in an earlier rule that “The assertion that… antibiotics in livestock feed are hazardous to human health has been neither proven nor disproven.”
Now that you are a little more informed about Tides, let's move on to the 800 pound gorilla in the room...
The Apollo Project
Watch Glenn Beck's take on the Apollo Project:
I can't describe this despicable organization better than this. However, I will try to add more information to it.
The Apollo Project describes itself as:
a coalition of labor, business, environmental, and community leaders working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs. Inspired by the Apollo space program, we promote investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training. Working together, we will reduce carbon emissions and oil imports, spur domestic job growth, and position America to thrive in the 21st century economy.
True believers with an absolute belief that government is the solution to all social and economic problems, allied with labor unions, subsidy-seeking companies and global warming / weather control advocates.
As Glenn touched on it in the clip above, The Apollo Project is a coalition that consists of the usual ilk like SEIU, ACORN, Campaign For Americas Future et al. As Glenn also noted, Apollo is a Tides Center project, which as I noted earlier is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization.
So, who is CAF? Again, we look to Undoinfluence.com for a description:
Labor-dominated lobbying and electoral network heavily influenced by progressive plutocrats and secret donors working on anti-corporate, anti-military, welfare-state, and other “progressive” programs. [...] Helped incubate the Apollo Alliance, now a project of Tides Center.
Their current board of directors consists of socialists, communists and other people that want to "reshape" America:
Phil Angelides, Chairman, Canyon Johnson Urban Communities Fund
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council
Robert Borosage, President, Institute for America’s Future
Leo Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers Union
Gerald Hudson, International Executive Vice President, Service Employees International Union
Mindy Lubber, President, CERES
Nancy McFadden, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs for PG&E Corporation
Kathleen McGinty, former Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Terence M. O’Sullivan, General President, Laborers’ International Union of North America
Ellen Pao, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers
Michael Peck, Principal, MAPA Incorporated
John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress
Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club
Dan W. Reicher, Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, Google
Joel Rogers, Director, Center on Wisconsin Strategy
The Apollo Alliance has a huge laundry list of notorious endorsers, one of which is a convicted felon and a self avowed communist named Van Jones. You know him, the "Green Jobs" czar that doesn't have to go through Senate confirmations and reports to the President only?
Yeah, really nice people that wants to "reshape" America. Remember, these are people who Obama surrounds himself with and if we don't oust this character in 2012, then we won't have anyone to blame but ourselves when this country will be in tatters.
If you're scared, say your scared. But don't run around the country and smear someone just because you are afraid of them.
You know when someone is scared of another when the person they fear is a constant topic of conversation. So it seems with democrats and Sarah Palin. I have never seen so much fear of one person as I have with the media and democrat politicians and their fear of this woman; any time this woman thinks about making a statement, either on her Facebook page or on the air, the MSM jumps on it like a cat does a mouse.
Then MSNBC, CNN, NBC and the rest of their ilk milks it in an attempt to boost their ratings to more than 20 viewers. At least they can thank her for the boost instead of smearing her every chance they get.
Here we have a woman that was mayor of a small town in Alaska, then took on the Republican good ol' boys in the oil companies and sent them packing and eventually becoming governor of a state that provides the bulk of the USA's energy. One would think that she would be lauded as a role model for women and their struggle to make it in the cesspool of politics, but no, she is castigated, smeared and in my opinion defamed by people that have an abject fear of her.
And the media doesn't just smear her. They seem to have a penchant for going after her family.
Let's peer into the past and recall some of the "unbiased" reportage of her by the mainstream media.
Rachel Maddow smeared Sarah by claiming she is anti Semitic.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. As a last note, she has beaten all of those frivolous ethics charges filed against her.
These personal attacks and smear campaigns tells me that these people are scared witless of this woman. Why else is she a hot button issue? If she were insignificant, you definitely wouldn't be seeing her on the news as much as she has been, in fact she would be a non issue like Cindy Sheehan or Mitt Romney. Speaking of which, why isn't the media going after 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls like they do Sarah?
Think this is a rhetorical question? Then have a look at what Paul Begala had to say about Sarah:
Here is Matthew Littman's sexist comments in regards to Sarah Palin:
Folks, this is abject fear. Anyone, be it man or woman, who causes this sort of vitriolic behavior towards them can't characterize it as anything else.
Real classy stuff coming from "educated" people, isn't it?
Now they label her as a quitter and a lame duck after she stepped down as governor, because she felt that it was in Alaska taxpayer's best interest when fighting those unfounded ethics complaints.
I think the fear she is putting into these people is based largely on the possibility that she may make a run in 2012, particularly when there seems to be enablers, such as Newt Gingrich et al. What I mean is now that the 2008 presidential election campaign has came and went, what other reasons could there be? During her convention speech, she set the spark that rekindled the Conservative movement and this would surely be cause for concern as far as Obama getting another term goes.
And if Obama and his cronies keep going down the road they are currently on, then yes, I would say that the democrats have much to worry about in Sarah Palin.
Is the main stream media attempting to divert attention away from the health care debate by shouting racism? It seems so when you see their reportage.
Take a look at the CNN clip below:
Yet, according to that ever so unbiased Contessa Brewer, these protests aretaking on a racial overtone, "But also there are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists."
I'm not sure if Contessa has an issue with color blindness, but, it would appear that the protester with the AR-15 slung over his shoulder is black. But that isn't the only thing the MSM missed. At a New Hampshire rally, a protester by the name of William Kostric was accosted by union thugs, that is until they saw what Mr. Kostric was carrying:
But what the ever so reliable MSM missed isn't what's bothering me. What has me perturbed is what the MSM is attempting to do by diverting attention away from the health care debate by ginning up non existent, right wing extremist racism when reporting on these protests. Of course, it's to be expected when a news corporation has billions of dollars invested in the Obama administration.
Recalling the incident that occurred on June 10, 2009, the left wing copy and paste media were beaming with joy when they reported that James W. von Brunn was a right wing extremist. However, with a little digging, it was soon discovered that von Brunn had a history of anti social behavior; as an example, he was sentenced in 1983 to more than four years in prison for attempting to kidnap the Federal Reserve Board after a guard found him outside of a board meeting with a gun, knife and sawed-off shotgun.
I'm no expert on history, but, wasn't it Abraham Lincoln, a conservative, who abolished slavery? Wasn't it the democrats that filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Is it Conservatives or democrats that supports Israel's right to exist and their sovereignty be recognized and protected?
Well, James von Brunn hated Jews, blacks and all other minorities. He was also a Holocaust denier. Considering that left wing extremists are constantly railing on Israel and the history of the KKK having democrat roots, it seems to me that von Brunn fits quite well into the left wing camp.
Obama state run media outlets focusing on Americans voicing their concerns and outrage at town hall meetings, seem to forget the violent past when George W. Bush was president. So, let's take a look back at recent history.
Remember this during the RNC Convention?
Or what about these:
Or what about this:
Where was the condemnation from CNN, MSNBC and other state run media outlets during these protests, that more often than not turned violent? It was non existent. Yet, when protesters voice their outrage towards Obama, the state run media is all over it, claiming that they are well orchestrated mobs and nothing more than astroturf.
As the president spoke, demonstrators outside held posters declaring him a socialist and dubbing him "Obamahdinejad," in reference to Iran's president. People screamed into bullhorns to protest a bigger government role in health care. "Nobama Deathcare!" one sign read. A young girl held up a sign that said: "Obama Lies, Grandma Dies."
The New York Times, that bastion of media fairness, reported that a democratic congressman found that "an opponent of health care reform hanged him in effigy" and was confronted by "200 angry conservatives."
Did the effigy look anything like the image below?
And was the congressman's encounter with "200 angry conservatives" anything like the encounter former President Bush was confronted with in Portland, Oregon? Both news outlets were there during this protest, yet at no time was any coverage given to it.
So why all of the media outrage at these town hall protesters and posters depicting Obama as the Joker from the movie Dark Knight? Well, Rush Limbaugh doesn't call them state run media for no reason. News organizations, such as MSNBC, CNN, NBC, New York Times et al, have sunk millions of dollars into getting Obama in the Oval Office. So it should come as no surprise that they will report anything that can be deemed as a threat to their dear leader; consider how often Sarah Palin makes news on these pathetic excuses for journalistic media sources.
And let's not forget who owns MSNBC and NBC who, by the way is on Obama's Economic Advisory Board.
About 230 years ago, a man with the most basic of an education set sail for the colonies to make a new life for himself. Two years after his arrival he watched the oppression of his fellow colonists by the British. This individual decided that he had seen enough and acted by putting his thoughts onto paper, then anonymously publishing a pamphlet in 1776 that would ultimately lead to a fait accompli, or what we all know to be the American Revolution and...
Freedom.
That person was Thomas Paine and his pamphlet is called Common Sense. I am of the opinion that we are headed for another revolution, though the path is murky and instead of bullets, we use the ballot box. After all, the oppression and abuse being committed by our government today is really no different than it was in 1776.
The current topic of the day is government run health care; a 1017 page monstrosity that will ultimately lead to the destruction of the private industry and freedom of choice being ripped away from us. With town hall meetings erupting into near chaos because of real American passion, fear and deliberate instigation by SEIU thugs, will we see that revolution in 2102 at the ballot box?
You betcha!
Why is it that members of Congress castigate the rich and claim to be for the middle class and down trodden, when these very same people are about $30,000 a year short of being one of those rich villains? Currently, middle class America has an income of about $40,000 - $50,000 per year, yet members of Congress earn about $175,000 per year, which as you should know, is more than the 95% of those people that President Obama promised he wouldn't tax. I personally don't have anything against anyone for being wealthy or trying to become wealthy, except when they steal and demonize those who are.
Members of Congress are doing both of these.
They are also trying to pass bills into law when they don't even have a clue what they contain AND they are telling us that they must be signed into law quickly; one woman was quoting from the bill to Arlen Spector and he responded that what she had just read wasn't in it!
Then there is the President himself. Arrogant with a chip on his shoulder who can't take criticism from his fellow countrymen. Below is an excerpt from Thomas Paine's Common Sense that I think should serve as a reminder of what this country fought, bled and died for and what we are seeing this very day.
No man was a warmer wisher for reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775 (Massacre at Lexington), but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen tempered Pharaoh of England for ever; and disdain the wretch, that with the pretended title of Father of his people, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.
But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for several reasons:
First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power, is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, “You shall make no laws but what I please?” And is there any inhabitants in America so ignorant, as not to know, that according to what is called the present constitution, that this continent can make no laws but what the king gives leave to? and is there any man so unwise, as not to see, that (considering what has happened) he will suffer no Law to be made here, but such as suit his purpose? We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in America, as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After matters are make up (as it is called) can there be any doubt but the whole power of the crown will be exerted, to keep this continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or ridiculously petitioning. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question is an independent, for independency means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us, “there shall be now laws but such as I like.”
But the king you will say has a negative in England; the people there can make no laws without his consent. in point of right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it, and only answer, that England being the king’s residence, and America not so, make quite another case. The king’s negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England, for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for putting England into as strong a state of defence as possible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be passed.
Does this remind you of our president? It does to me. Come 2012, if Sarah Palin decides to make a run for the Oval Office, she will get my vote.
What does a politician do, particularly a liberal democrat, when they have their backs up against the wall? They start making accusations and resort to ad hominem attacks.
And it's not the first time Queen Pelosi has resorted to these bully type tactics, reminiscent of the goose stepping Gestapo during World War II. Recall the CIA flap when she accused them of lying to Congress and has repeatedly called Republicans un-American when they don't agree with any democrat policies. Oh, let's not forget what she said to describe anti-war protesters criticized by war supporters as unpatriotic.
In a USA Today op-ed column, Pelosi and Hoyer made these accusations in regards to American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights at town halls opposing health care reform.
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades," Pelosi said in the paper.
What facts would those be? Have you even read HR 3200, Madame Speaker? Are you even aware that ACORN and SEIU thugs are coming to these town halls for the sole purpose of disrupting? Are you aware that one African American conservative was brutally beaten for no reason, other than exercising his Constitutional rights? He certainly wasn't carrying any swastika symbols.
So, it's like this: liberal protesters, like Code Pink and MoveOn, are exercising their rights. Republican and Conservative protesters are Nazi, un-American mobs. Sound about right, Mrs. Pelosi?
On Friday Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner asked Congress for an increase of the $12.1 trillion debt limit claiming it is "critically important" to act within the next two months. He also said, "It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations."
The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that the federal government's budget deficit reached $1.3 trillion within the first ten months of the 2009 fiscal year, which, according to the CBO, is on track to reach a record high of $1.8 trillion by the end of the twelve month time period.
Well, here's the problem, in my opinion. Haven't we been told by state run media that the economy is getting better? Typically when the treasury secretary asks that the cap on the debt be increased, there is a problem with consumer confidence.
So what's going one here? Is the economy on the rebound, or is it not?
After Kenneth Gladney, a young African American man, was beaten by three SEIU members at Russ Carnahan's town hall meeting in St. Louis, his attorney is calling for the president and Russ Carnahan to condemn the actions of these union thugs.
In a letter written by Kenneth Gladney's attorney and sent to the St. Louis Tea Party Association, he describes in detail what these SEIU goons did to his client:
“Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, and then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman.”
The actions by these paid activists reminds me of Kristallnacht, (are these the Nazis Pelosi was referring to?). The only exception being that there wasn't an assassination that triggered the violence towards Mr. Gladney, unless you consider free speech being murdered.
So where is the beer for this man, Mr. President? Are you calibrating your message before you open your mouth? Are you trying to distance yourself from your own past?
Now that the Obama White House has set up a "snitch on your fellow American" program, have they gotten themselves into a trap by their own arrogance?
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a), is a statute that establishes fair information practice that dictates the collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. It requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register and prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records without the written consent of the individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The statute also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records, and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements.
Now, there is a pesky little federal statute that requires the government to retain ALL forms of communications. The reason for this statute is so the government can't rewrite history by claiming they never got the message.
After the "snitch on your fellow American" program was implemented, so that the Obama White House can receive information about health care reform "dissension" and report anything "fishy", it would appear that our dear leader's cronies have gotten themselves into a bit of trap. If the White House collects any data, it violates the Privacy Act of 1974. If they delete any of the emails they have received, they violate the communication retention statute.
Ever since this snitch program (flag@whitehouse.gov) was enacted, anyone who doesn't see it as troubling either doesn't care or is a devout socialist, communist, fascist, etc. This tactic was used by the Hitler Youth and it's currently what goes on in places like Iran. Is this a characteristic of our country? Or is it what our country is coming to?
Unfortunately, the government can't be sued for any rights violations because of sovereign immunity.
We've all heard it, "47 million Americans don't have health care insurance..." If you have a modicum of skepticism like me, you ask yourself who are these 47 million Americans and how is it that the world's only super power could and would tolerate something so egregious.
Well, let's break down this figure. Once you see the numbers, you begin to see that this number is just a tad bit inflated. And that's for a calculated reason.
Starting with the number 47,000,000, let's subtract those Americans that earn over $50,000 per year who don't want health care insurance, which is about 18,000,000. Now, that leaves us with 29,000,000 Americans uninsured.
Now that we have a new figure, let's remove those illegal immigrants, which is roughly 12,600,000. That leaves us with about 16,400,000 Americans that don't have health care insurance. Out of those 16,400,000, remove about 8,000,000 who are under the age of 18 which gives a rough estimate of 8,400,000. Let's not forget those invincible 18 to 20 somethings who think that they'll never get sick.
So, what we have left is roughly 8.4 million uninsured Americans.
So why is this inflated number bandied about? Well, if you are hearing and reading what's in the news about health care reform, don't you think that members of Congress and the President would stand a better chance on quickly passing HR 3200 when there are 47 million "Americans" that don't have health care insurance?
Prior to his 140 plus days as a senator, President Obama was a community organizer and shouted for and was a staunch defender of free speech. Now that the heat's too hot in the kitchen, he doesn't get out, he quashes it.
“Go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face...”
So said the Organizer-in-Chief during the 2008 campaign, which seems to have been intended for his pals in ACORN and SEIU, not average Americans who are genuinely pissed. Conservatives don't have the protesting streak in their DNA; we would rather protest by civil means instead of getting into a shouting match in public. The problem is that the average American (Nazis according to Pelosi) is genuinely upset because some of them have read H.R. 3200 and see their current health care and insurance disappearing if this disaster gets passed in the fall.
We all know that the liberal left and progressives love to protest (which has been proven as fake), after all it's there national past time. Yet, when everyday American folks organize and sound off with their concerns and express their opposition, they are demonized, marginalized and humiliated by the expert organizer and his cronies, both in his administration and the state run media. It reminds me of a mob turf war.
House majority leader, Harry Reid labeled these Americans practicing their First Amendment rights as "loud, shrill voices...", Nancy Pelosi refers to them as Nazis that are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." Now that statement is manufactured, see the difference? And let's not forget Barbara Boxer's "well dressed..." comment.
And who is funding these Nazi, swastika bearing mobs? Why it's non other than FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, et al.
Far be it from me, the average American, to make an observation, but, the Constitution is not just for ACORN, SEIU, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the like. By marginalizing and demonizing these genuinely pissed off Americans, the liberals and progressives are doing more damage to their cause than little old ladies and old veterans in these town hall meetings.
My advice to these people is to keep up the rhetoric and demonizing these people. Come 2010 and 2012 you libs and progressives will see REAL change.
How many people does it take to change a light bulb? Well, if it's a CFL...How many czars does it take to ruin a country?
28.
A czar is any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field. Just a reminder that these people are not placed under any scrutiny by the Senate for nomination, like a potential candidate for the SCOTUS. They also don't report to anyone except the president.
If anyone of these people should stick out at you, it's van Jones and John Holdren. Jones, a convicted felon during the Rodney King riots and a self admitted communist and Holdren who espouses forced abortions and putting sterilization drugs in drinking water.
1. Herb Allison-TARP Czar 2. Alan Bersin-Border Czar 3. Dennis Blair-Intelligence Czar 4. John Brennan-Terrorism Czar 5. Carol Browner-Energy Czar 6. Adolfo Carrion, Jr-Urban Affairs Czar 7. Ashton Carter-Weapons Czar 8. Aneesh Chopra-Technology Czar 9. Jeffrey Crowley-AIDS Czar 10. Cameron Davis-Great Lakes Czar 11. Nancy-Ann DeParle-Health Czar 12. Earl Devaney-Stimulus Accountability Czar 13. Joshua DuBois-Faith-based Czar 14. Kenneth Feinberg-Pay Czar 15. Danny Fried-Guantanamo Closure Czar 16. J. Scott Gration-Sudan Czar 17. Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar 18. John Holdren-Science Czar 19. Van Jones Green-Jobs Czar 20. Gil Kerlikowske-Drug Czar 21. Vivek Kundra-Information Czar 22. George Mitchell-Mideast Peace Czar 23. Ed Montgomery-Car Czar 24. Dennis Ross-Mideast Policy Czar 25. Gary Samore-WMD Czar 26. Todd Stern-Climate Czar 27. Cass Sunstein-Regulatory Czar 28. Paul Volcker-Economic Czar
So says the democrats in their latest round of propaganda:
If this doesn't make blood shoot out from your eyes, then you don't care.
"Now, desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs -- just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November."
Desperate and well funded Republicans? Who's funding these protesters? Why is it when liberals protest they are Americans exercising their rights, but when they are "Republicans", they are a well funded and organized angry mobs? We know who funds ACORN and their ilk. So I'll ask again, who is funding these angry Republican mobs? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin?
"mob activity straight from the playbook of high-level Republican political operatives. They have no plan for moving our country forward, so they've called out the mob."
And what "playbook" would that be? The Constitution? Didn't realize that it is a playbook. I hear and read of these Republican "mobs" being well funded, yet I have yet to hear and read who these groups are that's funding them. No plan for moving our country forward? That's a lie.
I think that House Minority Leader John Boehner responded rather eloquently:
"Instead of acknowledging the widespread anger millions of Americans are feeling this summer toward Democrat controlled Washington, Washington Democrats are trying to dismiss it as a fabrication. That isn't likely to sit well with Americans outside of Washington who are struggling and wondering when their elected leaders are going to wake up and change course."
But, I have a question. Isn't it hypocritical and ironic that a community organizer in the Oval Office is trying to prevent people from organizing their community?
Well, at least these well funded Republican mobs aren't sending emails to the White House (aka Reichstag).
After the August recess, I see one of two possible outcomes in regards to these democrat politicians. Either they are going to slam the brakes on or they are going to dismiss the outrage and shove it down our throats any way.
This tactic is reminiscent of the Hitler Youth when they spied on their own parents and fellow countrymen and reported them to the Gestapo. Is this Nazi type paranoia reawakening in the USA? Seems so, except that the information gets to the White House at the speed of light:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the Web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov
If there is any disinformation, it's coming from the source of the above blog entry. The last I checked these people are exercising their First Amendment rights in that pesky document called the Constitution. The way I see it is that Obama and his cronies don't like the community organizer tactics turned on them. The major exception is that these people are genuinely pissed off and I haven't found one health care insurance company that has hired any of them to rise up against their congressman and state senators.
So, what does the Obama White House do? Well, let's hear it from Dick Durbin:
In my opinion, what this "man" is saying is that these people are insignificant fakes. Sounds like a lack of respect for the American people to me. But, who am I?
According to Kevin McCullough of FoxNews, ACORN members are attending these town hall meetings to publicly berate people who are doing nothing more than asking questions and exercising their right to free speech. Yet, we know the history and current position of ACORN now under investigation for fraud.
When George W. Bush was president and virtually stalked by Cindy Sheehan, did you hear him berating her for doing it? Nope. He was classy about it and stated that's what is great about this country when you can protest a sitting president.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas is sending a letter to the Obama administration to cease and desist this tactic or to explain how Americans' privacy will be protected, stating “I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.”
It has been my experience that when people ask others to spy on them and report what they hear or see, they are scared and paranoid.
The creator of the poster is still unknown. The latest of these caricatures, depicting President Obama as the Joker from The Dark Knight, were spotted in LA and Atlanta. Obama supporters say that the poster is "mean spirited and dangerous." How that's possible is beyond me. Yet, it was okay to caricature former President Bush when he was in office.
So much for fairness, or is it open and blatant hypocrisy? I wonder what will happen to this person or persons who are putting these posters up if they get caught? Anyone want to bet the punishment won't fit the crime?
At any rate, it seems that Obama's popularity is sinking and mocking him openly is becoming more brazen. Disillusionment and the phony image he has portrayed is quickly being unmasked, as his policies are being exposed to the American people, such as the government involvement in health care and cap and trade.
If the President and Congress continues to go down this road of shoving thousand plus page policies down the taxpayer's throats, we will really see change in 2012.
Salon.com's, Juan Cole seems to believe that Sarah Palin is comparable to the Holocaust denying, wipe Israel off the face of the map Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Well, at least I won't compare this reprobate to a real journalist.
Why is the left so afraid of Sarah Palin? Is it because she connects with people like me and that scares the Hell out of them? If she wasn't a threat, then she wouldn't be in the media as much as she is. She would be a non issue, like Mitt Romney and Bobby Jindal, two possible contenders to unseat Obama in 2012, yet you hear very little of these two in the mainstream media. If they were not afraid of her, then we wouldn't be seeing these absurd and frivolous "ethics" lawsuits being filed against her by left wing zealots and loons.
Could it be that she is honest and down to earth? Heaven forbid that an honest person can be president. Why does the left wing hate machine, like Salon.com, MSNBC and the like never mention how she became governor of Alaska? After all, doesn't fighting and defeating politicians in your own party garner merit and credibility? Of course not. When a liberal democrat goes afoul, they are promoted (screw up, move up) and lauded for diligence and hard work in the past, or an attempt is made to sweep it under the rug and the race card is played.
I defy Mr. Cole to cite one instance where Sarah Palin ever stated that the Holocaust never happened or that a country is going to be wiped off the face of the earth.
An armed citizenry is important to Palin's conception of the republic, and she warned in her farewell address, "You're going to see anti-hunting, anti-Second Amendment circuses from Hollywood ..." She continued, "Stand strong, and remind them patriots will protect our guaranteed, individual right to bear arms ..." By talking about "patriots" "protecting" the individual right to bear arms, Palin skated awfully close to the militia or "patriot" movement on the right-wing American fringe (and not for the first time). Ahmadinejad is not similarly in favor of all citizens having guns, but he comes out of a popular militia, the Basij, which consists of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizen patriots, armed and pledged to defend the constitution of the Islamic Republic.
This statement is completely absurd. At no time did she ever "skate awfully close to the militia or "patriot" movement on the right-wing American fringe..." If the moron would pull his head out of his four cornered contact, he would realize that what she was saying is that this countries Constitution is under assault. As Ronald Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction..." And Juan Cole is proving this by this blatant misrepresentation.
You're a real piece of work and a liar. If you're scared, say you're scared. I did when this walking, talking disaster was elected as president.
Recently the news and left wing blogs claimed falsely that the EPA had decided to classify carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. In reality, the EPA didn't really classify the potent, nutrient rich fertilizer as a pollutant, but claimed that it was the amount or concentration caused by the "unambiguous result of human emissions." that was the issue and a concern for the agency, which is just as absurd.
Carbon dioxide is a nutrient required to sustain life on this planet. Who's to say how much is too much? Currently there is approximately 384 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the atmosphere. But if it's not CO2 causing the problem then what is it?
The seas and oceans. Water vapor pumps more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other thing on the planet, bar none and accounts for 95% of ALL greenhouse gases. Throwing money at it or buying these ridiculous "carbon credits" isn't going to fix anything, except someone's bank accounts, like GE's and Al Gore's. This absurd notion of climate change, caused by the modern human industrial population, diverts attention away from other issues that really matter, such as a cure for AIDS, cancer research and other related problems of the world.
Climate change has been going on for the life time of this planet (for those of you who believe in this claptrap, that would be 4.5 billion years). Do a majority of people believe in global warming? Probably, but my skepticism wonders how the question was asked. Is there a scientific consensus? It's irrelevant, because science doesn't work in this fashion, but, if you want to play this game, then consider the 31,000 plus scientists that do not buy into this sham.
You see, here is the problem. People that push this agenda can't do it in scientific circles or convince the populace that we are in dire straights if we don't change our evil ways, can't reconcile the problem that CO2 can't be a pollutant if it's a potent nutrient rich fertilizer necessary to keep life going. So, what they do is infiltrate politics and con them into believing it, thus giving Congress a new way of extorting taxes from the American people. Have you ever noticed that not one single scientist that has a different point of view has ever testified before Congress? That's for a reason.
When true believers are presented with an opposing point of view or facts, they automatically jump to ad hominems and vitriol; they do this because they can't cogently respond to a counter view and this destroys their credibility. In short, true believers don't want to read or hear what another has to say when it runs counter to their religion, which is what it really is.
When they are presented a question they respond with a long and convoluted non answer. Now, why is that? Because they and others in their religion can't reconcile the issue of their assertion that CO2 is a pollutant and the fact that it's a trace gas nutrient that is required to sustain life on this planet, it's a sort of dichotomy that they have gotten themselves into.
True believers don't ask questions to members of their church because they know that by doing so, they risk being ostracized. They can't convince the masses so their religion infiltrates politics and then metastasizes like a cancer, then the next thing we know politicians have found a new way to tax people and bring down corporations (hence the consequences that were never thought about).
True believers shout the "debate is over...scientists are in a consensus!". However, when it is explained to them that science does not work in a consensus fashion, they scoff. When we try to play their silly game and note that over 31,000 scientists don't agree with anthropogenic global warming/climate change/ocean acidification, they claim that they are fakes and have not had any peer reviewed papers published or some other twaddle.
President Obama seems to think that blaming the previous Bush administration for the current economic mess will save him. What, exactly, did he "inherit"?
1. In 2008, Bush expanded the federal budget to a staggering $700 billion. President Obama is adding $1 trillion.
2. Towards the end of his second term, Bush began a massive financial bailout scheme which was the first round of bailouts. President Obama has added more.
3. Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement program that cost $800 billion within a decade. President Obama proposed a new $634 billion health care fund, which now we see is going to cost over $1 trillion and a government takeover.
4. Bush was the first president to spend 3% of the GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has increased it by 20%.
5. Bush reigned over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt to the end of his second term. President Obama has doubled it to about $4.9 trillion beginning in 2010 to 2016.
So I'll ask again: What, exactly, did he inherit? Unemployment was at 4.8% when President Bush left office and it's now twice that after we were promised that it wouldn't breach 8%, if the second "stimulus" bill wasn't passed quickly (I emphasize second, because Bush's was the first, which McCain and Obama signed on to after they both postponed their campaigns).
Was it not the Democrats that were running the show when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac imploded? Was it not Barney Frank that said they were doing just fine in 2004? Didn't McCain sound the warning bells 11 times about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Didn't President Bush try to reign in these two financial giants in 2003, but was stymied by the Democrats?
At some point during his first term, President Obama will have no choice but to take responsibility for the fate of this country.
After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.
Salon.com's, Juan Cole