The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their prince and president!

If you would like to swap banners with us use the following code and it will show the banner below. Send us you code and we will add it to our banner page.

Banner

MICHAEL GOODWIN: Obama Thinks You're a Bigot If You Object to Ground Zero Mosque

By Michael Goodwin

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President. Now we know how Arizona feels.

First Obama stood with the president of Mexico as he bashed Americans as bigots for exercising their right of democracy on illegal immigration.

Now he stands with the developers of a mega-mosque near Ground Zero that, outside of Mayor Bloomberg, few New Yorkers want.

As always, this self-described "citizen of the world" mounts his high horse to emphasize that we must prove to foreigners how decent we are. "This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must remain unshakeable," he declared.

But it is unshakeable, as proven by the hundreds if not thousands of mosques in America, including many in the New York region. And it's worth noting that Obama made his announcement to Muslims marking Ramadan at the White House -- hardly a sign of religious oppression.

Bloomberg trotted out the same illogic -- that opposition to the mosque on that particular site near Ground Zero is a denial of religious liberty and a form of bigotry.

It's a crackpot theory, full of political grandstanding but not a shred of law or fact. The preposterous claims make no more sense coming from the president, he of the Harvard Law pedigree. Apparently common sense is not on the curriculum.

It's a land-use issue that turns on appropriateness, a routine point lost on developers and defenders. Would they also rise in high dudgeon to support an amusement park on the site, declaring we must not discriminate against Ferris wheels?

Remember, this same dynamic duo also insisted that putting the mastermind of 9/11 on trial near Ground Zero would convince the world what fine folk we are. There, too, opponents initially were blasted as bigots before Bloomberg came to his senses and flip-flopped.

I spy a trend: if you're opposed to something the president and the mayor want, you are a bigot.

So say yes, or shut up. Welcome to the new democracy, where being in the majority automatically means you are wrong.

I also smell a rat. The State Department first posted Bloomberg's screed on its website, while denying it was a sign of agreement. It then admitted the cleric behind the mosque travels the globe as a U.S. representative discussing religion. Finally, the White House insisted Obama would not get involved in "a local matter."

All that changed on a Friday night, without public warning, showing bad faith and bad manners. Then again, both are a habit with this president, which is why the nation has soured on him so quickly.

One thing is certain: the mosque will now be a hot issue in the midterm elections and a litmus test for candidates across the country. It would serve Obama right if he loses his House and Senate majorities over his support.

There was a better way. It came from Gov. David Paterson (D-N.Y.), whose offer to help the mosque developers find another location held the potential for a harmonious settlement.

But without even a serious conversation, they rejected the offer, reinforcing suspicion that provocation to the memory of 9/11 is part of the developers' plan.

It is self-evident that their professed aim, to build bridges across religions, can better be carried out in a spot not in the shadow of the murderous attacks by Islamic fanatics. Moving the mosque would help prove their motives are trustworthy and win a level of public support they won't get otherwise.

Paterson's offer called their bluff. While much about the project remains a mystery, we now know the developers are not the healers they say they are.

Having Obama in their corner doesn't change that. It only raises the stakes for him and America.

August 12, 2010

AZ billboard funded by usual suspects

The billboard says "have your papers ready, racial profiling straight ahead" which is really clever...or not. It was supposedly funded by a 'grassroots' Facebook page called 'Brave
New Foundation'. It's interesting they call themselves 'brave' because it's actually the same cast of Obama's cowardly thugs hiding behind a different name (again).

Who exactly are these "brave" organizations? ACORN, ACLU, Moveon.org, CAIR, Code Pink, Sojourners, SEIU, the Working Families Party are all 'partners' to name a few.

This anti-immigration law billboard is located on Third Street and Camelback, it warns: Have your papers ready. Racial profiling just ahead.

It was purchased by a California organization, Brave New Foundation. They organized the money to be able to do this, they say, through a Facebook page.

Everyone, you are going to have to be more involved. These people are organizing on a nation level, so they have an advantage of big money. We are going to have to go outside our comfort zones to combat these progressive organizations.

Remember, Michelle Obama said Barack Obama's never going to let you go back to your life the way it was before and that's true. But I promise you, you will go back to the life you had before, not the same kind of life that we had where, you know, the money will never end and all of that stuff, but I don't think that's what Americans really, truly value. In the end, what they value is being able to live their life the way they choose to live their life, being able to follow their own path and their own dreams and being left alone, being good to each other and just living in a decent community. That's what Americans cherish. Not the car, not the Mercedes, not the big house. That's not what they cherish. Family, friends, community. Values, principles, that's it.

I promise you, if you get involved now, you will be able to go back to that life. If you do not, your children will not and maybe your grandchildren. So, you're going to have to get involved because look who paid for this billboard. Look who these people are partnered with. This Brave New Foundation, this billboard, Have Your Papers Ready, Racial Profiling Just Ahead. If you go to their website, you'll see who's on the board of directors of this organization. The first one is Robert Greenwald. Do you remember Robert Greenwald? Look him up. You'll just remember him, one of the things he did was he bashed the FOX News network with a movie Outfoxed. He's on the board of directors.

Now, who are the partners of Brave New Foundation? On the on the board is Robert Greenwald. Partners, Color For Change. That's Van Jones' organization. That's the one that has been boycotting Glenn Beck, the first one to start. Then there's ACORN, ACLU, moveon.org, Care, Code Pink, Sojourners, or Sojourners, SEIU and the Working Families Party.

Now, let's just track these back to the Obama administration. Color For Change, Van Jones and James Rucker.

Rucker is the guy who can't get seem to get Glenn out of his head. Now, with Van Jones, tracked right back to Center for America Progress, George Soros and Barack Obama. Then there's ACORN. do I even need to spend my time tracking that back to Barack Obama? ACLU, left organization, you don't need me to tell you about this organization. Do sure don't need me to tell you about moveon.org, George Soros. Then there's CARE, you could track that back through Rashid Khalidi. Code Pink, has to connections to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Jim Wallace, the spiritual advisor of Barack Obama. SEIU, Andy Stern, the most frequent visitor to the White House so there's a direct tie to Barack Obama. Working family parties. Working Families Party is Joel Rogers which goes right back to Crime, Inc. He's the wizard.

This is who's controlling your country and now they're coming with Brave New Foundation. You catch on to them, they get caught up in some scandal, all they do is just change their names.

Now, when you see these things going on, you see that Rashid Khalidi is also involved with the President and the L.A. Times kept that information from you until after the election.
You see that Bernadine Dohrn is on the board of the Free Gaza foundation. which Code Pink is also involved with.

Rashid Khalidi is developing yet another flotilla, this one called The Audacity Of Hope that will launch and go towards Israel in September.

Mark my words, Israel, you are facing an extraordinarily dangerous fall. When you see that coming, you go to the United States, where you've got an administration that says there is no such thing as Islamic terror, there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. They are not prosecuting the terrorists in our country, they want to open up the doors of Gitmo. They have fouled up every single investigation and every single thing that we have had on terror, every single one of them. They'll tell us that the system is working and it's only because the terrorists were stupid that, you know, we weren't all killed. When you see all of these things and on top of all that, you see this mosque being built next to ground zero.

Now, I want to make it very clear. I am all for freedom of religion. I have been for the rule of law, you cannot stop someone from building a house of worship because you don't like it. It's wrong. You wouldn't want that happening to your church or your synagogue, your temple. You wouldn't want it to happen. It's wrong. That's religious bigotry.

But the warning flares have come up. They want to dedicate it this September 11th here at Ground Zero, September 11th, 2011, 10 years afterwards. I feel, a little like John Adams where he went to defend the British. He didn't want to, made him unpopular, but, again, that was just something that really bothered me.

However, that is the first whiff of smoke is where you say, Wait a minute, something is wrong. It was enough of a whiff of smoke that I then said, Check in to find out what we can do about this mosque. We started looking into the Emom. The Emom we found is a guy who's on the board of directors that gave the founding money for the flotilla. Once I saw that, now I've got a fire. This mosque should not be built. This is a this is a Trojan horse. That's all this is. You have this guy who's in this mosque but the reason why, I believe it's going to be built, the reason why I think this is moving forward and nobody in this government is doing anything is because this is the circle that this administration
plays in. They play in the red zone. They have connections to these people and they have sympathy towards these kinds of radicals. Bernadine Dohrn, she's a terrorist. She was part of Free Gaza and the flotilla. That has ties to terrorism. She is still connected to people at the white house. Bill Ayers, he's a terrorist. Still connected. Jeff Jones, the weather Underground, he's now with the Apollo Alliance. He's a terrorist. He's consulting the government of New York. This is why nobody in this administration is going to look into these things. You can't trust the FBI at the top levels on these things.

So, where does that leave you? Well, it now leaves you with funding a trip of this Emom to the Middle East as a goodwill ambassador for the United States. That's right, you tax dollars are paying a man with ties to terrorists to go be our "ambassador of peace." This is yet another slap in the face and yet another outrage. He's taking our dollars and going with the money from the State department.

Will anyone in the media ask, who is this guy? No. You know why? Because the media is full of people like Christiane Amanpour who couldn't give a flying rat's ass! They're more connected to the Palestinian side. Our leaders are on the wrong side here, gang. We are on the right side, WE THE PEOPLE are on the right side. Those of us who stand up for America and Israel, for God and for our cherished values are on the right side.

But we have people who are supposed to be leading us and people who are supposed to be our defenders in the press that cannot see anything past their hatred of Israel and the Jews and their hatred for the oppressor, which would be us.

August 10, 2010

Black Murders Eight Whites; Media Blames Whites

Dennis Prager

The title of this column seems unbelievable, but it is in fact what happened in America this past week. And almost no one has noticed.

After 50 years of being inundated with stories of white racism, and being taught in college that in this white-dominated society, only a white can be a racist, the American public has been properly brainwashed into accepting the otherwise incredible: A black man murdered eight white people at his place of work because they were white, and the media story is about the murderer's alleged experiences of racism.

Here's the Associated Press Report from Aug. 7, four days after the murders. It was reprinted in The Washington Post and throughout America:

"To those closest to him, Omar Thornton was caring, quiet and soft-spoken ... But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday in which the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself.

"'I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work,' said his girlfriend, Kristi Hannah.

"'He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black,' said Jessica Anne Brocuglio, his former girlfriend. 'Basically they wouldn't give him pay raises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.'

"'Thornton changed jobs a few times because he was not getting raises, Brocuglio said."

The New York Times Aug. 3 headline read: "Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing," and in the second paragraph, the Times reported:

"He might also have had cause to be angry: he had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work, the woman's mother said, and lamented that his grievances had gone unaddressed."

On Aug. 7, 2010, The Washington Post headline read, "Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism."

Of course, Thornton was fired for stealing beer, and there was video proof of him doing so. But this fact -- the one indisputable and most pertinent pre-murder fact -- got lost within the larger context of Thornton's claims of being a victim of whites.

Those preoccupied with Thornton's charges of workplace racism might wish to reflect on this: Racist and other bigotry-based murderers always blame their victims. Medieval Christians who murdered Jews blamed the Jews for poisoning wells, baking Christian children's blood in their matzo or some other terrible crime. Whites who lynched blacks blamed those blacks for rape or some other crime. Nothing is new about the Thornton racist murders except that the society in which in it occurred concentrated on the racist's excuses rather than on his murders.

Just as leading liberals would not ascribe Islamist motives -- until there was no possibility of denying them -- to recent Muslim attacks on Americans, the liberal media, i.e., almost all news media in America, does not brand these Connecticut murders for what they are: racist. That is why Thornton told the 9-1-1 operator, "I wish I could have gotten more of the people (i.e., whites)."

We are repeatedly told by liberal whites and blacks that America needs an honest dialogue on race. Needless to say, they don't mean it because the moment a white or black says anything critical of black behavior, he is labeled racist or Uncle Tom. So most non-liberal whites and blacks just keep quiet.

One result is this morally upside-down reporting of the murders in Connecticut.

Another example is the liberal narrative on blacks in prison -- "there are more black men in prison than in college." Every decent American regards this fact as a major tragedy. But most Americans believe that the fault lies primarily with the black criminals, not with a racist society. Most Americans believe that blacks who mug, rape, rob or murder commit those crimes for the same reason whites do -- they lack a sufficiently strong moral conscience.

But the dominant liberal narrative is that while white criminals are criminals, black criminals are largely victims.

Another example was the liberal narrative of the 1992 "Rodney King" riots in Los Angeles. It was perfectly expressed by the major newspaper of that city, the Los Angeles Times. During the riots, in which innocent Koreans, whites and others were beaten, maimed and killed, and innocent businesses burned to the ground, the daily special section on the riots in the Los Angeles Times was titled "Understanding the Rage." When blacks riot, whites are the reason. When a black murders eight whites in Connecticut, whites are the reason.

One terrible consequence of this liberal attitude toward black violent crime is that too many blacks come to believe that less is expected of them morally than from whites. And the truth is that most Americans on the left do expect less from blacks.

But saying any of this gets us nowhere because it is simply labeled racism. If you don't believe me, check leftist reactions to this column on the Internet.

Most liberal leaders want an honest dialogue about race as much as they want to honestly describe the murders in Connecticut.

August 7, 2010

Stimulus in action

President Obama had to know this was going to come out sooner or later. How are your tax dollars 'saving' the American economy? Oh, let us count the ways. How about $90,000 for a new sidewalk to replace a five year old sidewalk, that leads to a ditch? Or $50 million for WNBA practice facilities? Don’t worry. It gets worse.

Here is your stimulus dollars at work, $554,763 spent on replacing windows on a visitor's center in Washington State. The center closed its door three years ago. $762,372 was given to the University of North Carolina Charlotte for dance draw. Sorry, What?

Dance draw. It's like YouTube of dance or Dance Tube. This will allow choreographers to explore interactive dance without having a full cast of dancers present.

Wow, why didn't we do THIS earlier? Now the country's fixed! All it took was $762,372. That will help the economy!

We don't have steel mills anymore. We don't lead the world in any kind of industry anymore. We don't make refrigerators or televisions because we're going to do all the paperwork right? We're going to be the finance at least, right? Oh, no, we're not going to do that anymore either. But you can hold you head up high because America is leading the world in dance tube!

May be we need a Constitutional amendment on choreography. Naw, I think this pretty much takes care of it.

But wait there's more.

$62.5 million for a light rail tunnel under the Allegheny River in Pittsburgh. Do you know why? Go on. Ask me why.

Remember folks, this is a stimulus this is going to change people's lives.

You want to know?

All right, this economy saving job is designed to connect sports stadiums to the casinos.

That's going to fix America. I mean, come on, think of the convenience of going right from a PNC park directly to the casino.

Then we have this, $73 million for two fire stations in San Antonio. $73 MILLION! for two fire stations in San Antonio. $11.2 million to convert a tiny closed down train station into a museum.

$1.9 million to fund the study of ants. Those must be some exotic ants. Not just regular ants. Exotic ants, like the one that's living here illegally and we don't deport?

Now the government would never study just regular ants. No, no. These are exotic ants. They're from another country.

$90,000 for new sidewalks in Boynton, Oklahoma, to replace a very OLD sidewalk, five year old. They're five years old $90,000. Well, the sidewalk does lead somewhere right? Yep! It leads to a ditch. How poetic. THAT symbolizes this administration to a tee! At least the ditch is in good shape.

$40 million for upgraded office space and indoor parking for Kansas law makers, $40 million so our rulers can park in style.

$50 million for WNBA practice facilities in Connecticut. I didn't even know that the WNBA was still around. BTW, it was a $15.8 million no bid contract.

Halliburton? No, it's not Halliburton, but it's $15.8 million no bid contract to clean up the environmental mess that they helped create. Sarcasm off!

$762,372 to a Georgia Tech professor so he can study improvised music. That's good isn't it? Improvised music. That's creating a job, because he had a job and now he has two jobs.

Now if we can take that $762,372 and combine it with the same amount to the University of North Carolina Charlotte for the dance draw, maybe we can get improvised music and dance tube. Wouldn't THAT be great?

If you've said it once, you've said it a thousand times. The problem with this country is the lack of preplanned music. You have to start improvising music.

Wasn't it Woodrow Wilson who created preplanned music? When did the player piano come in? Around that time period, if not a little bit before. See, music anticipates what's coming. Do you see what I mean? They're artists. They know.

But seriously folks this doesn't really work. They know it. They have no clue how to create jobs or fix the economy. They are just throwing gobs of money (your money) at this and hoping SOMETHING will stick. Then if the economy does start getting better (in spite of this idiotic policy) they can claim credit.

Now, this one's not going to piss you off, America. We're just going over stimulus package and how the money has been spent. But THIS spending MUST be needed because everybody will be waiting for the results of this. Folks we just spent $144,541 to...wait for it...to get monkeys high on cocaine to see how they respond.

Hold on. Is there a problem with monkeys getting high? Do we really want to see what's going to happen if you get your monkeys stoned? I know people get their babies stoned. I've seen the YouTube videos. I haven't seen the Dance Tube on it, but I've seen the YouTube individuals where people take they babies (they should go to jail for this) and blow the smoke of pot or something in the baby's face, which is always so cute when you've done that to an infant. But is somebody wasting their cocaine on their monkeys?

I guess this must happen all the time. A huge problem in America.

Now, answer me this. If you were a cocaine user, I bet you wouldn't even share your cocaine with your best friend, let alone a monkey would you?

Then we have $497,893 to quit smoking and get a Smart Phone. What is that? I guess they are buying Smart Phones for people so when they felt like they might smoke, they could call someone and they could tell them not to smoke. So, that's a Smart Phone.

Amazing, now that's a good smoking campaign! Maybe not the most effective.

If you liked that one, I think you're going to like this next expenditure, $199,862 helping Serbians lobby Russian policymakers.

Yep, Siberians!

It would make sense to have Serbians to lobby Russian policymakers. I mean, you want the Siberians to lobby the Russian policy maker right? Because the Russians ALWAYS listen to the Serbian lobby don't they?

How is that helping our economy? Is there a plot?

How does creating jobs for Siberians help unemployed Americans?

Now, this one I like, $298,543 to help predict the weather...on other planets!

Now I know what your going to say, What are you, a planet-phobe? Are you some kind of Zeta planet-phobe? Don't you want people on other planets to be able to know what they should be wearing that day? Why do you hate Mars?

Boy I hope they make a Mars weather channel because, you know, I only have time to watch TV once a while I want to hear that if you're traveling to Atlanta, it's going to be hot, 98 and a chance of a thunderstorm. BUT! If you happen to be going to Mars, it is, of course, going to be very cold, with a chance of really cold. Low about 250 below zero. The high today around 219 below zero.

Isn't it great folks, that we have this new technology to predict the weather on other planets. After all who hasn't wondered what the weather is like on Venus while looking through the classifieds for a job? 312 on Venus today, what a life changer. After all some employer might ask you in an interview, "what is the temperature on Saturn today?" Might make all the difference in getting that job!

So, not only do we have inerter planetary weathermen getting gobs of you tax dollars, now we are spending $456,663 for Cal. Berkley to study global circulation in the atmosphere of Neptune.

I'm telling you folks, you can't make this up!

$712,883 goes to scientists who are trying to create a joke machine. Now that is a waste of money because, I think, they've already done that. It's called Congress!

But seriously, A joke machine? I can't tell you how many times I have wished that someone would invent a joke machine. That's the best thing they've spent on it on so far.

This one is a little scary. $500,000 to Dayton, Ohio, for microchips to track citizens' use of recycling bins. Let me tell you something, you put one of those recycling bins on my porch or on my curb, you're not going to need a chip to track it because it will be in your ass. You can look for it there!

It might be difficult for you to keep it there, but it won't be hard for me to shove it up there.

Sorry about that folks, I just read that off of a piece of paper that was just spat out by my joke machine!

July 28, 2010

Racism or Stupidity

Walter E. Williams

A black or white person, now dead, who lived during the civil rights struggles of the 1930s, '40s or '50s, might very well be appalled and disgusted by black behavior accepted today. Yesteryear, it was the Klan or White Citizens Council who showed up at polling places to intimidate black voters. During the 2008 elections, it was the New Black Panthers who showed up at a Philadelphia polling place to intimidate white voters and tell them, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker." What's worse is the U.S. Department of Justice has decided to not to prosecute.

Black intimidation of voters, to my knowledge, is rare, but black intimidation of Asians is not. Recent reports out of Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students beating up Asian students. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, in the wake of serious black-on-Asian violence at South Philadelphia High School, charged the district with "deliberate indifference" to the harassment of Asian students and with "intentional disregard" for their welfare.

The violence is not restricted to Asian youngsters. Asian adults are included, such as the recent bludgeoning to death of an 83-year-old Chinese man in San Francisco and the pushing of a 57-year-old Asian lady onto Muni subway tracks.

A white Charleston, S.C. teacher frequently complained of black students calling her: white b----, white m-----f-----, white c--- and white ho. Most people would judge that to be racism and demand it to end. Charleston school officials told the teacher this racially charged profanity was simply part of the students' culture, and if she couldn't handle it, she was in the wrong school. The teacher brought a harassment suit and the school district settled out of court for $200,000.

What about black youngsters who hit the books and study after school instead of hitting the streets? Sometimes they are ridiculed as being incog-negro or acting white and the ridicule is often accompanied with life-threatening physical violence. Many blacks, particularly black males, have arrived at the devastating conclusion that academic excellence is a betrayal of their black identity.

The pathology seen among a large segment of the black population is not likely to change because it's not seen for what it is. It has little to do with slavery, poverty and racial discrimination. Let's look at it. Today's black illegitimacy rate is about 70 percent. When I was a youngster, during the 1940s, illegitimacy was around 15 percent. In the same period, about 80 percent of black children were born inside marriage. In fact, historian Herbert Gutman, in "Persistent Myths about the Afro-American Family" in the Journal of Interdisciplinary History (Autumn 1975), reports the percentage of black two-parent families, depending on the city, ranged 75 to 90 percent. Today, only 35 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. The importance of these and other statistics showing greater stability and less pathology among blacks in earlier periods is that they put a lie to today's excuses. Namely, at a time when blacks were closer to slavery, faced far more discrimination, more poverty and had fewer opportunities, there was not the kind of chaos, violence, family breakdown and black racism that we see today.

Intellectuals and political hustlers who blame the plight of so many blacks on poverty, discrimination and the "legacy of slavery" are complicit in the socioeconomic and moral decay. But as Booker T. Washington suggested, "There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

Personal observation:

Barack Obama's writings, speeches and plans for America has detailed his Hypothesis of placing all resources, time and effort into those American Citizens and non-citizens alike who have shown complete and utter failure in all aspects of life.

The Barack Obama 'Hypothesis' is that if these 'Failures' become Productive, the productive base will enlarge and eventually all Citizens will benefit by 'Trickling Up' throughout America.

The Barack Obama basic belief system holds that given the proper amount of money and education they will become Productive Citizens.

This Barack Obama Hypothesis ignores facts, logic and reason and especially History.

Liberal Progressives (Marxists) contend that Poverty is the primary cause of Crime, NOT only in American Cities but the main reasoning behind the Islamic Terrorists attacking America, even though crime is going down in one of the worst economic times in History and Islamic Jihadists have been attacking American Citizens for almost 250 years.

40 years ago Liberalism 'Declared a War on Poverty' and American taxpayers have poured over 40 trillion dollars into changing the nature of Humans from making bad decisions with subsequent bad actions and lifestyles, into Good Citizens who make good decisions and live accordingly simply by giving them money.

Liberal Progressives (Marxists) contend that the 'Reason' the War on Poverty has had little if any effect on Poverty so far, "NOT enough money has been spent".

Barack Obama's 'Trickle Up Hypothesis' is nothing more than an escalation of the 'War on Poverty' which will NOT only have similar results to the War on Drugs, but be an even worse failure.

Obama's and the Democrats, total lack of faith in the (African) American spirit is breathtaking in it magnitude and insulting for it's lack of historical understanding!

July 25, 2010

You don't need to be a Weatherman...

To know which way the wind blows.

Below I outline some of Bill Ayers’s crazy domestic terror group The Weathermen - and you can read the entire, agonizing manifesto HERE. But this is the playbook currently being used by the President because many of the radicals in and around his administration are children of this hate-America manifesto.

All right, You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows. I've been doing some research on the terror group The Weathermen and I think I have found their manifesto. If you want to understand what is happening in this country, if you understand how this is all coming together and what their designs are, all you have to do is read You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows.

http://www.archive.org/details/YouDontNeedAWeathermanToKnowWhichWayTheWindBlows_925

This is the Weatherman's manifesto. Their plan to destroy the United States of America. I want you to read it. You will then see the connections, you will see president-day things happening. I read it and it was breathtaking to me.

Read it for yourself, you will see that I am not taking it out of context, because I won't want to behave like the White House or the NAACP. Because when you say the Weather underground and blown away context matters.

I truly believe this is the manifesto for the president, or the people around him. Once you start reading about and get into it there's is a lot in here that has taken place and is about to take place.

I'm just going to go through some of the highlights here. So here it is, the first part of the international revolution. You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows. First of all, I guess before we get into that, we see it was submitted by Bill Ayres, who is friends with the president, no matter what they say. Bernadine Dohrn, his wife, who is part of the Free Gaza movement.

You have Jeff Jones, who is currently working for ACORN and the state of New York on trying on to help the state of New York's finances. So these are the people who won this. So we already have ties to the White House and to the extreme organizations of George Soros.

I. International Revolution

The contradictions between the revolutionary peoples of Asian, African, and Latin America and the imperialist headed by the United States is the principle contradiction in the contemporary world. The development of this contradiction is promoting the struggle of the people of the whole world against U.S. imperialism and its lackees. People ask, what is the nature of the revolution we talk about? Who will it be made by and for and what are its goals and strategy?

The overriding consideration in answering these questions is the main struggle going on in the world today between U.S. imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it. National liberation struggles, this goes again to liberation theology. It is necessary to defining political matters in the whole world because it is by far the most powerful. Every other empire and petty dictator in the long run is dependent on the U.S. imperialism, which has unified, allied with, and defended all the reactionary forces of the whole world.

So basically, the U.S. is responsible for all the evil in the world. That's the starting point here and this is paragraph two.

"From the Soviet imperialism or the Israeli imperialism to workers struggles in France and Czechoslovakia, we determine who our friends are and enemies are, according to whether they help U.S. imperialism or fight to help defeat it."

What does that mean? This is why free GAZA is important. This is why it doesn't matter who they stand with. They can stand with Vladimir Putin. They can stand with Mao, they can stand with the biggest dictators in the Middle East, if those dictators are trying to destroy us. They withstand Chavez, and Castro, and Ahmadinejad, a guy you would think the left has nothing in common with.

You want to talk about a theocracy, there it is. A theocracy, you want to talk about the rights of homosexuals. They kill homosexuals and you wonder how do they do it? They do it because they stand against the imperialist nation of America. That's critical. It answers questions also about opening the doors of Gitmo and yet, sign assassination orders on American citizens.

So if you're standing against the United States, these people love you. That's why I truly believe they're so strongly against the Tea Party. Because the Tea Party is a bigger threat than the Republicans are, because the Republican party, they are still progressives. They'll get it one way or another they just want it now. That's their fall back plan is the Republican Party. The Tea Party is a restoration party. Small government. So the very first question, quoting now from this report again, from the manifesto.

For the very first question, people of the country must ask considering the question of revolution is where they stand in relation to the United States as an oppressor nation and where they stand in relation to the masses of people throughout the word, whom U.S. imperialism is oppressing. That's the first question you have to ask.

So in their twisted mind, the determining factor of if you're good or bad is do you oppose the United States or not. Tou have to recognize there are an oppressor first of all. And why is the word "Oppressor" important?

Liberation theology!

You're either a victim or you're an oppressor. So that's why they say, there's no shades of good in that. It's whether you're against the oppressor. That's how you can stand with the Black Panthers because they're against the oppressor. How do you not recognize they're bad guys? It doesn't matter, they're against the oppressor.

That's why you can substitute any one of their arguments. If it's not race, it's class, if it's not that it's money, it doesn't matter what it is there is always an oppressor and the oppressed.

You are either a victim or the oppressor!

And that's how they can justify the potential killing of 25 million people if they thought they had to. If they had won and wanted to re-educate all of America, and people wouldn't be re-educated, they would be fine with eliminating 25 million. They're oppressors.

Their words:

"The primary task of revolutionary struggle is to solve this principle contradiction on the side of the people of the world. It is the oppressed peoples of the world who have of created the wealth of this empire and it is to them that it belongs."

So here is where Obama gets his "redistribution of wealth" ideas. The goal of revolutionary struggle must be the control and the use of this wealth in the interest of the oppressed people of the world.

This is why they can take the wealth and then the leaders decide what's going to happen with that wealth. That's why they don't have a problem saying, you know, it's like in the Middle East, these Imams who say you've got to martyr yourself. Well, they don't martyr themselves. How come the leaders don't martyr themselves? Well, because they have to distribute it because they know best. They have to tell you where to blow yourself up. That's why they will get rich and nobody has a problem with Al Gore being worth a quarter of a billion dollars. Nobody has a problem with that.

They have no problem with THEIR wealth, they just have a problem with MY wealth!

Why?

Because my wealth, as Theodore Roosevelt said, we have to make sure it's for the common good and that it was earned and was for the common good. That requires somebody to decide what is the common good.

It is in this context, we must exam the revolutionary struggles in the United States. We are within the heartland of a worldwide monster, a country so rich from its worldwide plunder, that even the crumbs doled out to the enslaved masses, with its borders, provide for material existence very much above the conditions of the masses of the people of the world. This is why it is global redistribution of wealth. The U.S. empire as a worldwide system channels wealth, based on the labor and resources of the rest of the world, into the United States. The relative affluence existing in the United States is directly dependent on the labor and natural resources of the Vietnamese and blah, blah, blah.

You can change these countries to anything you want, and it becomes -- what is that film done by the Tides Foundation? The History of Stuff or the Story of Stuff.

This reads like that cartoon, The Story of Stuff that is played in classrooms all across the country. Showing America as an oppressor, taking stuff from all of the other countries and we must stop doing that, and giving it to other countries. All of the United Airline Astro jets, all of the Holiday Inns, all of the Hertz automobiles, your television sets, car, wardrobe, already belong to a large degree to the people of the rest of the world.

This is their manifesto. THIS is what Obama believes.

Scared yet?

If the site goes down and you want a copy e-mail us.

July 24, 2010

Why I don't Support the Tea Party

By Ron Hall, Guest contributor

The Tea Party, or as I like to call them, the T-Potty, that's what I'm going to write about today.
The T-Potty seems to have been initially formed to take a more conservative stance than the existing conservative party, the Republicans. Originally people simply assembled and expressed their views. That was fine, and everyone woke up and paid attention.

Then something predictible happened. Texas Governor Rick Perry and Governor Mark Sanford held a conference call speaking as leaders of the so-called decentraized Tea Party. People started calling into Hannity, Rush, etc and appearing on O'Reilly and Hannity as "Tea Party Leaders", claming their "Tea Party"was the original.

What started off as a voice for the more conservative constituancy became a chance to grandstand, claim power, and ultimately profit from the Tea Party. And then the more predictiable thing happened:

The vote began to get splintered, allowing the races to be manipulated. Democrats started supporting weaker T-Potty candidates financially to defeat Republicans in the primary so they could in turn defeat the T-Potty candidate in the general election. Primaries between Republicans, Republicans in Name Only (Moderates like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown), and T-Potty people result in a split vote allowing R I N O 's to win.

The T-Potty seems to me more concerned about getting the spotlight then change. Real change requires REAL work - not a popularity contest. It requires diggin in, working, and changing the system, not a popularity contest in the media that makes you a magnet for criticism from the left wing media.

T-Pottyers need to grow up, get outta their diapers and start doing the real work of government from within. Change doesn't happen from Media appearences, power plays, and popularity contests. Look at what you've accomplished so far - NOTHING. Are you HAPPY WITH your Potty Mouths? Get off the airwaves, quit jockying for power, and start actually DOING work within the Republican Party. Then real change will occur.

Within the last year:

Democrats: Financial Reform Law, Health Care Reform Law
Republicans: Gun Control at the Supreme Court, defeating the Public Option, Key clauses in the Financial Reform Law
T-Pottyers: Being a target on MSNBC. splintering votes and spoiling elections.

July 22, 2010

Journolisters debate, endorse gov’t control of Fox News

by Ed Morrissey

Tucker Carlson has another Journolist exclusive today for the Daily Caller and this one rates high on the irony meter. Jonathan Strong starts off his report with the assessments of the Tea Party as fascists, if not flat-out Nazis, by Journolist members such as Bloomberg News’ Ryan Donmoyer, who clearly needs a refresher course on early 20th-century history with his insipid confusion of normal political rallies to the Beer Hall Putsch and the SA. We’ll get back to that in a moment, because the real meat comes on page 2, where reporters from Time Magazine and the British newspaper Guardian endorse a “tough legal framework” designed to silence Fox News:

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

How did the rest of the liberal journalists react to the idea of either government regulation of the press or outright squelching of a media organization? Strong includes the reaction from The New Republic’s John Judis, who said that “pre-Fox,” he would have shared Scherer’s alarm at a White House manipulating media access. In the Obama administration, however, the representative of “the inflight magazine of Air Force One” suddenly sees the tactical advantages of such a strategy.

Zasloff eventually offered a different strategy:

I hate to open this can of worms, but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their [Fox News] broadcasting permit once it expires?

I’m actually unclear on whether Fox News has an FCC license, since it uses satellite transmission rather than actual broadcast through local affiliates. Usually, it’s the affiliates themselves that have to get the licenses, not the network whose content they broadcast, and Fox News doesn’t use traditional TV stations for its content. But that’s a more esoteric point. The point is that Zasloff has no trouble letting government determine whether a news organization should be allowed to publish, apparently based on nothing more than its discomfort with the news itself. Not only does this sound as though Zasloff needs a refresher course on Constitutional law and free speech, it also sounds like an endorsement for fascism, in which governments pick and choose which businesses are allowed to exist based on their level of cooperation with the government.

Let’s get back to Donmoyer, and his historical illiteracy. Most of the quotes regarding the supposedly fascist quality of the Tea Party movement come from people outside of traditional journalistic roles (a blogger and an academic), but Donmoyer is ostensibly an objective news reporter covering Capitol Hill and the White House for Bloomberg. On Journolist, however, he lets his paranoia show:

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

The Brownshirts were the SA, armed thugs organized into a paramilitary structure by the Nazis (who later were deemed expendable, with most of their leadership murdered by the SS after the Nazis took power). The term “Brownshirts” came from the uniform they wore in public. They conducted massive levels of violence against their political opponents, especially the Communists, but hardly limited to them. They took their direction from the very hierarchical Nazi Party leadership. In short, they’re nothing like anything on the American scene on either side of the political divide, not even the anarchists who conducted real violence in St. Paul during the Republican convention. Donmoyer’s education on this period seems to have been gleaned from comic books and paranoid fantasies in progressive blogs.

And when did Tea Parties start “getting violent”? The only violence of note at any of the Tea Party rallies has been the violence perpetrated against the Tea Party activists, such as when union thugs beat up Kenneth Gladney in St. Louis. Shouldn’t a reporter in an objective news capacity check his assumptions before painting Americans as Nazis simply for grassroots political activity?

The irony here, of course, is that these journalists fret over the fascism they see while gleefully looking for ways to get the government to silence people they don’t like. They’re so desperate to find the mote in the eyes of their opponents that they completely miss the log in their own. And that wouldn’t be anything more than human nature, if it wasn’t for the fact that media outlets like Time, Bloomberg, and Guardian hire these people to deliver the news.

Addendum: I’m going to add one more point that will probably not be terribly popular, but still should be kept in mind. Painting the entire journalistic profession as evil and conspiratorial because the Journolisters either participate in proposing smears and government totalitarianism or silently give implicit consent is as unfair as painting the Tea Party movement as racist because a few neo-Nazis and LaRouchies show up as provocateurs. The Journolist isn’t a random sample; it was self-selecting among political activists masquerading as journalists.

That doesn’t mean that this kind of activity was limited to Journolisters, either, but we should stick to the evidence at hand. The Journolist appears to have plenty of delights to keep us busy for a while.

Personal note:
The opinions expressed by these Journalist are not just partisan, they’re downright abhorrent – fantasizing about the death of their opponents, seriously discussing state censorship of views they don’t agree with (ie liberal-vs-conservative) is one thing, but I would like to think that there is a line SOMEWHERE that no reasonable person who would dare call themselves a journalists would dare tread and still have the nerve to call themselves “American.”

So with regards the topic of whether or not these morons are an accurate representation of journalists as a whole: if the rest of the journalist profession genuinely shares our (quite reasonable) view that these statements are abhorrent, then we should fully expect them to publicly denounce their colleagues in their coverage of this story. However, if these “Journalist” are truly representative of the most in the media, then we should fully expect the mainstream media to bury this story (like they bury everything else that is damaging to the progressive agenda).

As far as I am concerned, their silence is no less indicative of their general feelings than the silence of so-called “moderate” Muslims when it comes to the so-called “fringe” of Islamic extremism.

July, 21, 2010

Obama's assassination list?

I came across a story that somehow slipped below the radar (if this were Bush THAT never would have happened) - the President (according to the oh-so conservative Salon.com) has a "presidential assassination program," where "American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism." This is particularly baffling coming from Obama, who complained about just listening in on phone calls to terrorists. Now he wants to shoot Americans suspected of terrorism?

I know this seems a bit conspiratorial but it has been confirmed by several sources but there are still those who will not believe me. If these were terrorists plotting to sneak into America to kill us I might be willing to let him have at it but these are, supposedly, American citizens. I know what your thinking. Didn't Obama campaign against scooping Arabs off the street without due process? Yes, yes he did. But now it turns out that he has a list of people that 'he' deemes a danger and a terrorist threat, Again these are American citizens who will be taken out without due process, assassinated.

Still skeptical I see. Well I'm going to have to go to another source. I be those liberals out there are saying, "Oh, well, then he just went to Fox." I want you to read this transcript for yourself. Please read carefully this report.

GREENWALD: Well, I know that that's the fact. I mean, the Republicans are at least being consistent. When Bush was president they said, we think the president should be able to have whatever powers he wants in an unchecked fashion as long as it's justified by terrorism and war. The Democrats, though, said that they were against those things, that the president shouldn't have powers to exercise in an unchecked fashion. And again if you look at what Democrats, including Barack Obama, objected to, it was merely things like eavesdropping on Americans and detaining them without due process and without charges. And now Democrats have completely abandoned those objections now that there's a Democrat in the White House and apparently not just detaining and eavesdropping Americans but targeting them for murder is acceptable to the Democratic Party now that there's a Democrat in the White House.

But wait, it gets better...

GREENWALD: And again if you justify that, targeting American citizens for assassination without any due process, what don't you approve of?

RATIGAN: Are you surprised at the media's lack of an outroar relative to this when you consider what it might have been if George W. Bush did the exact same thing? Quickly.

GREENWALD: Well, I think the media wasn't really particularly all that upset about what Bush did, either, and I think the problem is that if you justify something with the word terrorism, it scares the media and they are afraid to appear sympathetic to terrorism by opposing it. And what they have to get back to is the basic rights and Constitution that say that political leaders in the United States cannot exercise power in an unchecked way.

RATIGAN: Glenn, sing it loud, sing it proud. Thank you so much for -

I know, libs are saying, there must be something wrong with the tape. That didn't sound like Glenn Beck. Oh. Oh, that's right. It wasn't. It was Dylan Ratigan, a name most of America had never heard of because he's in the witness protection program, otherwise known as MSNBC. And is that Glenn Greenwald from Salon?

So that's two (non-fox) sources, Salon and MSNBC.

Now, I saw Glann tweet about this this weekend. People wouldn't believe it if it came from him. But here it is, MSNBC saying where's the press on the president developing a list with the national security adviser of people that can be assassinated because they're a threat? And not just on the battlefield. We are now giving - remember with Bush they talked about the FISA court. You are going to some FISA court? How dare you! For eavesdropping on American citizens overseas! That was their problem.

Now the president, who campaigned that he doesn't want to scoop up Muslims and just hold them without trial - I didn't know we did that in America but apparently so. American citizens that were held without trial, scoop them up because they're Muslim, that wasn't going to happen anymore, at least on a mass scale. But now we're not even talking about scooping them up. We're talking about executing them. We're talking about assassination.

Now, something's not right here because the president's men all say there is no terror. They all say there are no Islamic extremists. They all have done everything they can to shut down the war on terror. What is going on?

So what is this really all about? We have the president when he is running for office saying that we're not going to round up Arab families anymore. I didn't know we were...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process that threatens my civil liberties.

WOW! Whole families were rounded up? We shouldn't have done that. Where is Holder? Why didn't he bring charges against those who were rounding up those poor Arab families? Men, women and children tossed into concentration camps and executed, without due process.

That's right, he's to busy covering for the Black Panthers!

Ok, so it's evil if President Bush (Republican) wants to listen in on people talking to terrorists. But it is perfectly Okay, if president Obama (Democrat) is allowed to make a list of people, American citizens, that he wants to assassinate. Because they pose a threat to the nation. Hummmm, wonder what teh difference is? I wonder why one is bad and the other is not? We may never know.

Well, those are the only people who can pose a threat because we know there's no other terrorists around. We've heard that from John Brennan. Brennan says there's no terrorism, there's no terrorists, there's no jihadists. There's no extreme Islam.

Here's John Brennan. Here is the guy that is helping make the list and check it twice.

BRENNAN: The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind. And as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one's community. And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.

So there are no terrorists, there's no terror. Maybe it's the fact that he went to school in Egypt for oh, so many years that he has that.

Anyway, so who is the president targeting? Well, we know that there's one American citizen who is a cleric in Yemen. Okay. You know what? I'm probably with ya on the Yemen guy. Probably with ya. But he's an American citizen and he is also not on the battlefield. I'm not saying that we have to go capture him and bring him back or cut him any slack. Could we maybe have a little due process before we execute? If you're on the battlefield, shoot them in the head. Shoot them in the head. If you are now outside of the battlefield area, I don't think so, call me old fashioned.

As Salon.com said, if this was Bush saying these things or having this policy, the left would be in an uproar. Democrats would be screaming at the top of their lungs.

So why is he doing this? Because he doesn't want innocent Arabs just scooped off the streets, but he will go without due process, any due process. Just make a list of people that need to be assassinated in case of an emergency. If an event happens, the orders are there from the president: Just shoot these people. Oh. Okay. Wow. Really?

Do we know who they are? Not specifically, but I can make a guess.

Didn't Homeland Security release a document on extreamists in America and how to identify them?

And these idiots wonder why so many Americans are buying guns!

July 17, 2010

Who's Distorting the Civil Rights Movement?

By Glenn Beck

It's time to set the record straight on what the civil rights movement was really about versus what progressives and radicals want you to think it was about. It was about human rights. But let me show you how the movement has been perverted and distorted.

You've got folks like the Rev. Al Sharpton telling everyone that Martin Luther King's dream was really about redistributing wealth:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. AL SHARPTON: Someone was saying to me the other day, Reverend Sharpton, we've got an African-American president. We've achieved the dream of Dr. King. And I told him, that was not Dr. King's dream. He's a great man. I've been working with the president and supported the president. But the dream was not to put one black family in the White House. The dream was to make everything equal in everybody's house.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

You've got the NAACP telling everyone that King was a socialist and that we wouldn't be celebrating Martin Luther King Day if we really knew who he was. Listen closely to what the chairman of the NAACP recently said:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JULIAN BOND, NAACP CHAIR: We don't remember the King who was the critic of capitalism, who said to Charles Fager when they were in jail together in Selma in 1965 that he thought a modified form of socialism would be the best system for the United States. We don't remember the Martin Luther King who talked ceaselessly about taking care of the masses and not just dealing with the people at the top of the ladder. So we've kind of anesthetized him. We've made him into a different kind of person than he actually was in life. And it may be that that's one reason he's so celebrated today because we celebrate a different kind of man than really existed. But he was a bit more radical. Not terribly, terribly radical but a bit more radical than we make him out to be today.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

They're trying to paint King as a radical. But one guy doesn't think King was radical enough: SEIU's Andy Stern doesn't think the civil rights legend helped create "real change." In 2004, Stern told The Washington Post that "pressure is needed [to bring about real change.] It was not enough to have Martin Luther King, Jr.... You need Stokely Carmichael."

Who else is trying to raise the threat of disruption to have demands met now? Oh yes, the New Black Panthers:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. MALIK ZULU SHABAZZ, CHAIRMAN OF THE NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY: We'll see Glenn Beck on August 27 on the National Monument. The New Black Panther Party will see him there. Since he is attacking us nightly and he won't talk to us. We will him on the National Monument at the National Mall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

It's actually on August 28.

Racism is being used as a tactic for political gain.

The NAACP is now trying to intimidate Tea Partiers, passing a resolution to condemn quote "racist elements" in the party. I do not believe that racism is a white man's problem or a black man's problem or a Hispanic problem.

Racism is a human problem.

They are now trying to divide us into black and white, not unite us into one human race like Dr. King did in the '60s. It is our responsibility to protect the rights granted by God that King fought for the government to recognize.

July 14, 2010

Do two leftists make a right?

By Mac Johnson at Energy Tribune

[Venezuelan strongman Hugo] Chavez’s regime recently announced that it will nationalize a fleet of 11 drilling rigs belonging to Tulsa-based Helmerich & Payne, an evil capitalist corporation that threatened Chavez’s revolution with the totally unreasonable and anti-social act of asking to be paid $49 million owed to it by PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned energy company.

Asking to be paid for one’s work is clearly not in the best interest of socialism, an obligate parasite that depends for its survival on a subset of people working like brainless milk cows without full and fair pay, so Chavez decided to slaughter the obstinate cow for beef.

In a normal world, in which the US had a president and Congress that saw themselves as defenders of American-based businesses in the international arena, such blatantly unjust nationalization would provoke a vigorous response – or at least a strongly-worded press statement. But that sort of thinking is so pre-globalization. And besides, the feds are much too busy mobilizing against Arizona to take on Venezuela.

But since we don’t live in a normal world, I would like to make a modest proposal: seeing as Obama likes to nationalize businesses so much, why not nationalize one that’s already nationalized (by another government)? Obama should nationalize CITGO, the US arm of PDVSA. Perhaps two leftists can make a right.

Read the whole thing here.

July 11, 2010

What If Glenn Beck Said, 'I Hate Every Last Iota of a N-----! Kill Their Babies!'

Doug Giles - Townhall.com

What do you suppose would happen to Glenn Beck if he …

1. got Bo Derek cornrows
3. borrowed Monica Lewinsky’s beret
4. put on some white Doc Martens
5. donned a New White Tiger jumpsuit
6. bedazzled the jumpsuit with 15 pieces of black-hatin’ flair
7. got a cheap sound system
8. got multiple sets of various sized congas
9. Tom Sawyered a few shirtless white guys with dreadlocks to play the congas
10. solicited several angry, braless Caucasian New White Tiger women to wildly dance to said congas, and …
11. then took this SNL skit out in the middle of a busy street and started screaming, “I hate blacks. Ever last iota of a n-----! I hate him! If you want freedom, white people, you’ve got to kill the n-----! Kill the black man’s babies!”

Oh, and I almost forgot this ditty: And all of this amazingly bizarre, vile, violence-promoting racist vomit was captured on video for the whole world to see, what, you inquiring mind, would (or should) happen to GB?

I can tell you what would happen:

1. When he was out at the next New White Tiger Douche Bag rally recruiting Darwinian holdovers to join the cause, his wife and kids would move out of their casa faster than a bag of pork rinds disappears around peckish rednecks.

2. FOX would fire him; the Tea Party would toss him in the tank; and the mainstream media would be on him like Al Gore on a reluctant masseuse.

3. In addition, if he had been under investigation for clearly intimidating voters (on tape) by standing at a poll during the last presidential election with a bat and his black-hater outfit on, and a biased DOJ dropped the charges and let his guilty ass go, I’m a thinkin’ that the feckless head of the Department of Just Us, might be forced—no, shamed—by public outrage to truly poke around in Beck’s garbage again and maybe, just maybe, take a second look at the voting booth baton BS.

This past week more unbelievable video of the dude the DOJ’s Eric “Let’s-Cut-Terrorists-N-Racists-Some-Slack” Holder found no guilt with in the Philly voter intimidation case made its way to YouTube for the whole world to see just how insane this black dude truly is. For those who haven’t seen the vid yet, let me give you some nuggets from this New Black Panther’s noggin.

One “King” Samir Shabaz, who looks like Milli Vanilli’s angry and petite brother, head of the Philadelphia branch of the New Black Panther Party, the dude Holder dropped an open-and-shut case on, was caught on film telling us how he really feels about “white crackers” and blacks who date or marry “white cracker whores,” which I guess would include President Obama because he is “half cracker,” as Shazam (or whatever his name is) would say, seeing that Barack’s mom was Caucasian.

Anyway, Shabaz went on the record saying that he hates “every last iota of a cracker.” Honestly, when he said that I didn’t know what he was talking about. Is he talking about Saltines or Ritz or Wheat Thins? Was it one particular cracker or all the thin-toasted biscuits that he abhors? And what would make a man hate these snacks so much? I was in a quandary about his bellicosity to crispy, skinny biscuits until I saw the entire video invective.

Apparently, white people are called “crackers” by the blacks who hate them; Shabaz said, “I hate white people. Every last iota of a cracker. I hate him.” Given the context, it is easy to see that “cracker” equals white devils, and he hates “every last iota of (them).”

Now for those of you who might be laughing hysterically at King Samir’s syntax, I wouldn’t judge him too harshly because even though he might not be that good with grammar, he might be off the chain in regard to math which could qualify him to be a player in Obama’s new NASA initiative. Ya neva know.

After the bubble-off-level Shabaz blasted his hatred for crackers, he then went full retard and began to scream at blacks on the street who were trying desperately to ignore him. He was yelling that if they truly wanted to be “free” they would have to “kill some crackers.” And not just some adult crackers, oh no! He also suggested that black people kill white baby crackers (I guess you would call them “croutons”) to be free. My question, Shamwow, is … free from what? Freedom?

There’s no way in hades Beck, or you, or I could say that stupid crap and walk away from it without a 5-10 sentence. The hate crime cops would be all over us—and justly so. But it appears that blacks can get away with it when it is directed at white devils while BHO is in da House.

Where are Sharpton and Jackson condemning this racial bigotry and call to murder? When’s Obama going to come out and say that this tool acted stupidly like he did to the upstanding Boston cop in the Henry Louis Gates case? Didn’t Imus get deep fried for saying something far less egregious? And, and, isn’t Mel Gibson experiencing hell on earth right now for being caught on tape dropping the N-bomb on his Russian-ex?

To bring it home, what if, once again, a conservative or a Christian said, “I hate n------and we should kill n------ and their black babies?” Or, I know, what if one of us said we should kill women? Or homosexuals? Or Muslims? Or kitty cats? It appears that if you’re black and block voting booths and scream murderous threats to whites, that’s totally cool and that’s “progress” in Holder’s world of hate whitey.

Oh, and one more thing: The mainstream media, like with the ACORN scandal, won’t touch this. Wow. What hypocrisy. You just know if it were Beck (or some lesser conservative luminary) the MSM would be banging that drum like a coked-up Keith Moon.

Here’s the revolting Shabaz video link:

July 10, 2010

Ad Banned By CBS: Opposing the Ground Zero Mosque

The mosque is being built for the same reason a dog pisses on your fence post. He's just marking his territory!

July 4, 2010

Genesis 47:13-27 (King Barry Nobama Version)

13 Now there was much less consumer spending in all the land; for the recession was very severe, so that the “land of the much less free” and the “home of the previously brave” languished because of unemployment, layoffs and a cutback in available consumer credit.

14 And Barack gathered up all the money that was found in the land of America and in the land of private business for the government bailouts and programs which they bought; and Barack brought the money into Congress’s house.

15 So when the money ran out in the land of America and private enterprise, all the Americans came to Barack and said, “Give us more programs like healthcare and welfare, for why should we do without or have to take personal responsibility as long as you are President? For the private sector has failed us and does not take from producers and redistribute the wealth.” And the media helped Barack by repeating whatever he wanted said to the land of America.

16 Then Barack said, “Give your freedom and independence to me, and I will give you healthcare, cash for clunkers, stimulus and all manners of government handouts, for the will to make your own money and provide for yourself is gone.”

17 So they brought their freedom and gave up their personal responsibility to Barack, and Barack gave them government checks, welfare credit cards and many new government programs in exchange for the productivity, freedom, security, independence, individualism and most of their income because of the new taxes needed for government. Thus Barack gave them everything they needed in life, from healthcare to food to jobs, in exchange for all their freedom and independence.

18 When the recession did not end and became even worse, the people came to Barack and said to him, “We will not hide from our lord that our money is gone; and our lord also has our possessions to which are now leveraged for taxes and bad credit. There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our private property.

19 Why should we continue to live a lower lifestyle before your eyes, both we and our land? We will trade our very lives and private property in exchange for government protection, security, jobs and healthcare. Take our lives and private property for guaranteed food and health, and we and our land will be slaves to Barack; give us government care, that we may live and not die, that the people may not have to be responsible for their own destiny.”

20 Then Barack bought all the land for Congress; for every man of America sold his freedom, because the liberal media propaganda and elitist academic indoctrination was severe upon them. So the land became the Governments.

21 And as for the people, Barack set up Government programs and monitoring to control them, from one end of the borders of America to the other end.

22 Only the land of the trial lawyers, teachers unions and labor unions he did not control; for the lawyers and unions had given the money to get Barack elected, and Barack would do nothing to risk losing their election contributions and votes. Thus no law or program was passed to reform lawyers, teachers or unions, instead, many new laws and programs were created to protect and benefit them.

23 Then Barack said to the people, “Indeed I have bought you into Government servitude and your freedom this day belongs to Congress and Government. Look, here are your benefits, your healthcare and your government jobs. Isn’t America great now?

24 And it shall come to pass when you make any income for yourself that you shall give 80% to Government. Twenty percent shall be your own, for you to spend on yourself but even then you will pay sales taxes, property taxes, embedded taxes and be required to purchase what we tell you to purchase at the prices we tell you it will cost, and you will pay for Government permits, licenses and fees for many of the things you do… both you, your household and the generations to come.”

25 So the people said and the liberal Democrat controlled media reported, “Barack has saved our lives; let us find favor in the sight of our lord Barack, and we will be Government servants because we no longer have to worry about taking care of our own lives.”

26 And Barack made it a law over the land of America to this day, that the Government should have 80% of all income, except for the liberal special interest groups, which got many tax breaks and exceptions to ensure they voted Democrat in the next election.

27 So America was no longer land of the free, but land of the Government; and the Government slowly took control of all possessions and grew and multiplied exceedingly.

July 2, 2010

Kagan Not a Fan of Limited Government, Natural Rights, or Even the Declaration of Independence

It’s been a long couple of days of hearings—three days, really, if you count Monday’s prepared statements and I’m still trying to separate in my mind the issues I care about from those less important and trying to remember some of the lighter moments that will color people’s recollections of these proceedings for decades. As I gradually sift through my notes and review key sections of testimony, here are some things that will stick with me:

Kagan refused to identify anything the government couldn’t do under its Commerce Clause power. She recited over and over the limitations the Lopez and Morrison cases give, the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn’t extend to non-economic activity or that traditionally subject to state prerogative, but she refused to tell Senator Coburn that his hypothetical bill requiring Americans to eat fruits and vegetables was unconstitutional. “Dumb,” sure, but perhaps worthy of the deference to the political branches that she hailed again and again. Nor did she offer her own examples of unconstitutional bills.

Not only is Aharon Barak, the philosopher-king Israeli judge, the nominee’s hero but so apparently is Oliver Wendell Holmes, whom Kagan cited several times for the proposition that broad regulations, even if unwise and infringing on individual liberty, is for the people to correct, not the courts. In response to Senator Kaufman’s questions about the pending financial market reforms, for example, she invoked Holmes and argued that while courts still have an important role in holding Congress to certain constitutional limits, they “should realize that they’re not the principal players in the game.”

Putting together the above two points, conservatives may have hoisted themselves on their own petard by insisting for decades that “judicial activism” equates to acting without the sort of majoritarian deference Kagan full-throatedly endorses.

The Kagan hearings were much more engaging than the Sotomayor hearings, even though they’ve gotten less press coverage in light of the continuing oilspill saga, Russian spies, Petraeus confirmation, and Senator Byrd’s death (and the World Cup!). The solicitor general is more articulate, has a better grasp of almost every area of the law (though Sotomayor probably wins on large swaths of criminal law), has a good sense of humor, and genuinely tried to answer questions. Just as Kagan admitted that judging was not a “robotic” task of applying law to facts, her presentation to the committee was anything but “robotic.”

Still, Kagan failed the Kagan Standard set out in her classic “Confirmation Messes” article—which I’ve now read several times and am honestly struck by its perceptiveness. Her incessant repetition that all Supreme Court decisions are “well-settled law” that she would not “grade”—virtually the only parts of her responses, whether I agreed or disagreed, that annoyed me—has no principled basis. For example, she flat-out refused to answer this type of question: “Ms. Kagan, if you were on the Court in 1942, and setting aside considerations of stare decisis that may affect how you would rule in a current case presenting related issues, how would you have ruled in Wickard v. Filburn?” That to me is unacceptable. Yes, nominees should refuse legal issues that are likely to come before the Court, but asking about previous decisions is fair game.

I’m disappointed but not surprised by Kagan’s position on use of foreign law. Yes, it’s never binding and, of course, you should use it in evaluating international treaties and conflicts of law situations, but it’s simply irrelevant to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Yet Kagan consciously left herself plenty of breathing room to cite foreign law inappropriately.

Finally, and I will be going over this section with a fine-toothed comb, in an instructive dialogue with Senator Coburn, Kagan disclaimed the idea of natural rights—looking pained at times to even understand what they are. “Does the Constitution give us our rights, or do they pre-exist government?” Coburn asked. Kagan evaded. “What about the discussion of the ‘inalienable rights’ in the Declaration of Independence?” he pressed. Kagan denied that the Declaration of Independence had anything to do with the role of a judge. This is sad, really, and ironic given that we’re heading into the Fourth of July weekend.

I do not yet know how I would counsel a senator to vote on Kagan’s nomination—she’s more than qualified in terms of legal knowledge, indeed better qualified in terms of temperament than to be solicitor general—but I know that I’m disturbed by much of what I’ve witnesses lo these last 48 hours. Last year at this time I suggested that the argument for Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation was “not proven”; she was fine at her hearings but did not carry her burden of persuasion. That may well be the case again.

June 28, 2010

Sessions’ Opening Statement on Elena Kagan

Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least fifty years. It’s not just that she has never been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which real understanding occurs. Ms. Kagan has never tried a case before a jury. She argued her first appellate case just nine months ago. While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases over a period of years…

What Ms. Kagan’s public record does reveal, however, is a more extensive background in policy and politics, mixed with law. Ms. Kagan’s college thesis on socialism in New York seems to bemoan socialism’s demise there. In her master’s thesis, she affirmed the activist tendencies of the Earl Warren Court, but complained that they could have done a better job of justifying their activism…

During her White House years, the nominee was the central figure in the Clinton-Gore effort to restrict gun rights—and, as the dramatic 5-4 decision today in McDonald shows, the personal right of every American to own a gun hangs by a single vote…

Ms. Kagan was also the point person for the Clinton Administration’s efforts to block Congressional restrictions on partial-birth abortions. Indeed, documents show she was perhaps the key person who convinced President Clinton to change his mind, from supporting to opposing legislation that would have banned that horrible procedure…

During her time as Dean of Harvard, Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard’s existing policy and kicked the military out of the recruiting office in violation of federal law. Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas…

In her first appellate argument, Ms. Kagan told the Court that the speech and press guarantees in the First Amendment would allow the federal government to ban the publication of pamphlets discussing political issues before an election. I would remind my colleagues that the American Revolution was—in no small part—spurred on by just such a political pamphlet, Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” To suggest that the government now has the power to suppress that kind of speech is breathtaking.

Also as Solicitor General, Ms. Kagan approved the filing of a brief before the Supreme Court asking that it strike down provisions of the Legal Arizona Worker’s Act, which suspends or revokes business licenses of corporations which knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, even though Federal law expressly prohibits such hiring. She did this even after the liberal 9th Circuit had upheld the law…

She clerked for Judge Mikva and Justice Marshall, each a well-known liberal activist judge. And she has called Israeli Judge Aharon Barak—who has been described as the most activist judge in the world—her hero. These judges don’t deny activism; they advocate it. And they openly oppose the idea of a judge as a neutral umpire…

In the wake of one of the largest expansions of government power in history, many Americans are worried about Washington’s disregard for limits on its power…Even today, President Obama advocates a judicial philosophy that calls on judges to base their decisions on empathy and their “broader vision of what America should be.” He suggests that his nominee shares that view…Americans want a judge that will be a check on government overreach, not a rubber stamp.

I think THAT says it all!

June 16, 2010

FDR didn't get us out of the Depression, Adolf Hitler & the Japonese got us out of the Depression

Sometimes you can read a book that will change your mind on some fundamental issue. Rarely, however, is there just one page that can undermine or destroy a widely-held belief. But there is such a page-- page 77 of the book "Out of Work" by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway.

The widespread belief is that government intervention is the key to getting the country out of a serious economic downturn. The example often cited is President Franklin D. Roosevelt's intervention, after the stock market crash of 1929 was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, with its massive and long-lasting unemployment.

This is more than just a question about history. Right here and right now there is a widespread belief that the unregulated market is what got us into our present economic predicament, and that the government must "do something" to get the economy moving again. FDR's intervention in the 1930s has often been cited by those who think this way.

What is on that one page in "Out of Work" that could change people's minds? Just a simple table, giving unemployment rates for every month during the entire decade of the 1930s.

Those who think that the stock market crash in October 1929 is what caused the huge unemployment rates of the 1930s will have a hard time reconciling that belief with the data in that table.

Although the big stock market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the next 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed-- and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.

This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to "do something."

What the government decided to do in June 1930-- against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it-- was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.

This was the first massive federal intervention to rescue the economy, under President Herbert Hoover, who took pride in being the first President of the United States to intervene to try to get the economy out of an economic downturn.

Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits-- and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the decade of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.

If more government regulation of business is the magic answer that so many seem to think it is, the whole history of the 1930s would have been different. An economic study in 2004 concluded that New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression. But the same story can be found on one page in "Out of Work."

While the market produced a peak unemployment rate of 9 percent-- briefly-- after the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment shot up after massive federal interventions in the economy. It rose above 20 percent in 1932 and stayed above 20 percent for 23 consecutive months, beginning in the Hoover administration and continuing during the Roosevelt administration.

As Casey Stengel used to say, "You could look it up." It is all there on that one page.

Those who are convinced that the government has to "do something" when the economy has a problem almost never bother to find out what actually happens when the government intervenes.

The very fact that we still remember the stock market crash of 1929 is remarkable, since there was a similar stock market crash in 1987 that most people have long since forgotten.

What was the difference between these two stock market crashes? The 1929 stock market crash was followed by the most catastrophic depression in American history, with as many as one-fourth of all American workers being unemployed. The 1987 stock market crash was followed by two decades of economic growth with low unemployment.

But that was only one difference. The other big difference was that the Reagan administration did not intervene in the economy after the 1987 stock market crash-- despite many outcries in the media that the government should "do something."

June 11, 2010

Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse

By ARTHUR LAFFER

Today's corporate profits reflect an income shift into 2010. These profits will tumble next year, preceded most likely by the stock market.

People can change the volume, the location and the composition of their income, and they can do so in response to changes in government policies.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the nine states without an income tax are growing far faster and attracting more people than are the nine states with the highest income tax rates. People and businesses change the location of income based on incentives.

Likewise, who is gobsmacked when they are told that the two wealthiest Americans—Bill Gates and Warren Buffett—hold the bulk of their wealth in the nontaxed form of unrealized capital gains? The composition of wealth also responds to incentives. And it's also simple enough for most people to understand that if the government taxes people who work and pays people not to work, fewer people will work. Incentives matter.

People can also change the timing of when they earn and receive their income in response to government policies. According to a 2004 U.S. Treasury report, "high income taxpayers accelerated the receipt of wages and year-end bonuses from 1993 to 1992—over $15 billion—in order to avoid the effects of the anticipated increase in the top rate from 31% to 39.6%. At the end of 1993, taxpayers shifted wages and bonuses yet again to avoid the increase in Medicare taxes that went into effect beginning 1994."

Just remember what happened to auto sales when the cash for clunkers program ended. Or how about new housing sales when the $8,000 tax credit ended? It isn't rocket surgery, as the Ivy League professor said.On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there's always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

Now, if people know tax rates will be higher next year than they are this year, what will those people do this year? They will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe "double dip" recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn't take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan's delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama's delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don't work until they take effect. Mr. Obama's experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

In 2010, without any prepayment penalties, people can cash in their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), Keough deferred income accounts and 401(k) deferred income accounts.

After paying their taxes, these deferred income accounts can be rolled into Roth IRAs that provide after-tax income to their owners into the future. Given what's going to happen to tax rates, this conversion seems like a no-brainer.

The result will be a crash in tax receipts once the surge is past. If you thought deficits and unemployment have been bad lately, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Incentives

What this translates to is Obama is enjoying a "boom" that is artificial because corporations are pushing profits into this year that they technically will earn next year.

This is creating a artificial rice in GDP. BUT, next year will come the crash when profits are way down because those profits were already declared in 2010 before the Bush tax cuts went away.

So, what this is, is an artificial boom now and an artificial crash latter. Now, what will happen? Democrats will pounce and blame the republicans (if they win big in November) and demand more government spending. Which will make the situation worse.

What is the solution? Make the Bush tax cuts permanent! I guarantee that if they happens the stock market will rally like we have never seen. Until then we will see an mass exodus form the market and a dash to get profits certified under the new tax laws before January 1st.

Republicans are being set up. They need to campaign on making the tax cuts permanent. Then sit back and watch the economy recover under their rule. Then they can run forever on the truth that tax cuts increase revenues to the government and tax increases reduce retinues.

June 4, 2010

World Press Rushes To Condemn Israel -- as Usual

by David Limbaugh

In reviewing the available facts about the Israeli storming of the Gaza-bound Turkish flotilla, two conclusions emerge: A)The Israelis were justified in their actions and B) the Israelis will continue to be unjustly condemned by the world community.

Consider:

Israeli is surrounded by nations and entities either dedicated to its destruction or decidedly hostile to it. In the past five years, Hamas has fired some 10,000 missiles into Israel from Gaza.

With that background and pursuant to its existential right to self-defense, Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza to prevent the delivery of weapons into the area that could and probably would be used by Islamic terrorists in more attacks against Israel.

If Hamas' acts of war against Israeli civilians aren't sufficient to convince you that Israel's blockade was justified, then consider that Egypt has imposed a similar blockade in the area to prevent the delivery of arms to Hamas.

Israel has not completely isolated Gaza. It has been providing abundant humanitarian relief to it and routinely allows the United Nations and international groups entry into the area.

Nor did it deny the delivery of aid to Gaza by this particular flotilla, but insisted on its right to inspect the goods for security purposes before allowing their delivery. What was the reaction of the flotilla's organizer, the Turkey-based IHH?

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, "All of our appeals were turned down." If the IHH's intentions were benign, why would it refuse its ships to be inspected?

Well, it seems humanitarian aid wasn't the IHH's main motivation. NewsBusters reports that as the flotilla was waiting to embark on its mission, the crowd on one of the ships that would be involved in the incident invoked a jihadist chant: "Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return." One said, "We are now waiting for one of two good things -- either to achieve martyrdom or to reach Gaza."

But what is the IHH? The Washington Examiner reports that it is a "virulently anti-American, pro-Hamas radical Islamist group" that "has been linked to the ultra-radical Muslim Brotherhood and to al Qaeda by French, Danish and U.S. intelligence agencies" and is one of many groups "that raise and channel funds to Hamas." Hamas has never renounced its organizing purpose: to destroy the state of Israel.

As Israel was contemplating how to deal with this guaranteed disaster, it was fully aware that an unsympathetic and biased international press would uniformly condemn any action it took.

One senior military source was quoted as saying, "It makes no difference what we do or how careful we are or how we tackle the matter of the flotilla. Whatever we do, they'll all be against us. They'll condemn us at the U.N., and we'll be scolded. We might as well at least preserve our national dignity and maintain the blockade of Gaza."

As the flotilla approached the Gaza Strip to defeat the blockade, Israeli commandos boarded one of the ships from a helicopter and were met with activists reportedly armed with metal poles, knives and guns. The Israel Defense Force later released video showing activists attacking soldiers with a stun grenade, a box of plates and water hoses.

Legal experts argue not only that the blockade was justified by international and domestic law as a response to acts of war but also that Israel was on firm legal ground in enforcing the blockade in international waters against ships determined to violate the blockade, which this flotilla clearly was. As commentators have noted, if the flotilla's primary purpose had been to deliver humanitarian aid rather than to sabotage the blockade, it would have permitted Israel and Egypt to inspect the goods and then send them into Gaza. Flotilla organizers themselves said, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies; it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians."

Indeed, it's highly unlikely that the IHH even harbored good faith intentions of securing the delivery of this "aid" to Gaza. As Jonathan Schanzer wrote in The Weekly Standard, the IHH knew its ships would never reach Israeli waters because the government had banned the group in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance.

But as long as it could provoke Israel to violence and count on the international media to further condemn Israel, the IHH would succeed in advancing its cause against Israel, even if -- especially if -- casualties occurred.

Though it's tragic that people died in the raid, is it fair to lay the blame on Israel for enforcing its blockade after first exhausting all peaceful solutions and on Israeli soldiers who acted in self-defense against activist aggression?

No matter. When it comes to this age-old struggle, fairness is rarely part of the equation. People have chosen sides; the facts be damned.

White House Admits To Bribing Another Candidate

A statement was released at 6:25am this morning detailing the bribe offered by Jim Messina, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, to a Democratic Senate primary contender from Colorado, Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff is holding a steady lead against incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennett, who was appointed to his seat by Governor Bill Ritter after former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar was appointed by Obama to Secretary of the Interior. Messina was offered a high-up position at USAID if he would leave the field clear for Bennet.

First of all, Bennet is looking pretty lame right about now. He gets his Senate seat handed to him by the Governor only after Obama cleared it out, then the White House steps in and tries to help him hold on to his seat because at this point it doesn't look like he can do it himself. Someone needs to tell this guy to go into another profession. And someone needs to tell Obama to let Coloradans choose their own Senator without it being chosen for them by higher-ups!

Second of all, this is another perfectly-crafted excuse that exculpates Bennett, Obama, and Ritter, and like the Sestak bribe, deserves a full investigation.

Here's the full statement from WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

Andrew Romanoff applied for a position at USAID during the Presidential transition. He filed this application through the Transition on-line process. After the new administration took office, he followed up by phone with White House personnel. Jim Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate. Months earlier, the President had endorsed Senator Michael Bennet for the Colorado seat, and Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters.

Romanoff said that he was committed to the Senate race and no longer interested in working for the Administration, and that ended the discussion. As Mr. Romanoff has stated, there was no offer of a job.

Aah, right. No offer of a job. Just a statement that if you don't run, you will get a job. Got it.

Remembering Those Who Made the Supreme Sacrifice

By Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney

Shortly after the Civil War both the North and South started to recognize those warriors who died in the epic war of our time. Originally this day was called “Decoration Day,” in which all the graves of those killed in this struggle were decorated with flowers. It was observed on May 30 until the Congress decided in 1971 to call it “Memorial Day” and make it the last Monday in May which we now observe.

We are now going into our ninth year of continuous ground combat in the Middle East and our 19th year for our Air Force and Naval Forces flying combat air patrols over Iraq in Operation Desert Storm and the follow on operations of Northern and Southern Watch. This is the longest continuous combat deployment of U.S. Forces in our history and we have had corresponding causality losses, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. We honor not only these brave warriors who have made the supreme sacrifice but also all the warriors in our history going back to the Revolutionary War who gave their lives to make us free. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not understand that our freedom has not been free but has come at great sacrifice in lives of those special Americans who died for this right.

I personally have experienced this loss when my younger brother Dick was killed in action on his second tour in Vietnam as a Company Commander with the 1st Cav Division. His widow raised 3 young children who grew up without knowing their father. Think of all the other widows and children who have equally experienced this devastating loss through all the wars this nation has experienced to keep us free plus the mothers, fathers and siblings.

We honor those brave Americans on Memorial Day again this year while we are engaged in two major theaters of combat. We must never forget them and I pray that all Americans will take the time out on Monday at 3 P.M. to remember them with a moment of silence. Freedom is not free! God bless this great nation and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep us free and those who will!

Lt.Gen. Thomas G. McInerney is retired from the Air Force. He is a Fox News military analyst.

FINANCIAL REGULATION BILL IS SOCIALISM

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

President Obama has taken the United States one more giant step towards socialism by ramming through the Senate his financial regulation bill.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury - a political appointee - to seize any financial company (bank or nonbank) simply because, in his opinion, it is too big to fail and in danger of insolvency. This power can be used for political retribution, pressure for campaign funding, or any other abuse bureaucratic whim or partisan politics can conceive. It is a power Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would love to have!

The legislation also requires that any business that extends credit, in any form, needs to clear the loan instrument in advance with the new consumer protection agency. The backlog of pending applications will strangle consumer credit.

And the bill fails to do the one thing it must do -- regulate derivatives and make them transparent. Senator Chris Dodd (D Ct) bowed to pressure from his sponsors on Wall Street and deleted the regulatory provision and set up a commission to study the situation for two years! Senator Maria Cantwell (D Wash) protested the cop out with a no vote against the legislation.

So how did it pass? Four Republicans sold out, that´s how! Among the RINOs were, of course, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine. But, surprisingly, Scott Brown (R Mass), the newly elected Massachusetts Miracle defected as did the normally stalwart Chuck Grassley (R Iowa).

Now the federal government has effectively taken over about one third of our national economy by passing Obamacare and regulatory reform in almost the same breath.

Repealing this regulatory travesty must be high on our 2011 agenda!

Despite the courageous opposition of Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash).

MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO SET TO OPEN ON 9-11-2011

The World Trade Center Towers have not yet been re-built, but there is one building right across from ground zero that's on schedule to open soon: a mosque.

Hey if you want to build a mosque there, go for it - but what has people really upset is that the dedication date is set for (you guessed it) 9/11/11.

We have American kids getting tossed out of school for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo (a Mexican beer holiday) because they were being insensitive. But it's totally cool to open a mosque right across the street from ground zero on 9/11?

The problem is that this is a more sestemmic than people know. The PC stuff has gotten way out of hand, like those crying over the kids who wore the american flag T-Shires on
Cinco de Mayo or those who are screaming like banchees over the Arizona law (that simple makes illegal that which is already illegal).

Here is our chief law enforcement officer from the DOJ talking about the Arizona bill yesterday in a hearing.

CONGRESSMAN POE: concepts that you haven't read the law. So can you help me out there a little bit, how you can make a judgment call on that but you haven't read the law and determined whether it's constitutional or not?

HOLDER: Well, what I've said is I've not made up my mine. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talk to the people who are on the review panel. Or on the review team that are looking at the law. But I've not reached any conclusions as yet with regard to it. I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with the people who are doing the review exactly what my position is.

That is understandable. The bil is so long and so complicated that it will take a team of lawyers to tunderstand right? You know how many pages it is? Pretty tough reading those 16 pages!

I know if 'I' were the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America, I wouldn't bother reading those 16 pages. I would rather read accounts from the ewspapers and from the press. No, wait a minute, I can't do that, because the president told me not to do that because there's a lot of misinformation out there in the press. How do I know what's true and what's not? The president told me I couldn't know what was true, what was not. I should go to the original source. But then again, it's 16 whole pages. I should just make a statement.

And he did...

HOLDER: It's certainly one of the concerns that I have that you will end up in a situation where people are racially profiled and that could lead to a wedge drawn between certain communities and law enforcement.

So it's going to lead to racial profiling? A bill he hasn't read? well, if he had bothered to read the bill, he would know it specifically prohibits racial profiling. I understand he's a bussy man, he doesn't have time to do that. I mean, how has time in their busy day to read 16 pages?

I believe what Mr. Holder means is, may I quote the president?: I don't have any of the facts, but the police are acting stupidly.

It sounds to me like we have somebody else in our government that has predisposed viewpoints on just about everything, and they don't need any more facts. They just know. All those pesky facts just get in the way. He's busy. Right now he's busy not hunting down those Islamic terrorists. But he is in court fighting hard for no right to privacy in your e mails. No time for those other problems like terrorism. Now he does have time to fight for Miranda rights of those jihadists. It's not for you, America, just for Islamic terrorists. They're fighting now for the tracking of your location, but not Islamic terrorists, they have rights.

But he want us to know he's fighting hard. Because he knows, he knows what we're up against. He knows what we're fighting against. He knows that there's a war going on and he knows the enemy. He's seen them on, waving their banners and flags at those Tea Party rallies, I mean terrorists gatherings. Or do we call this an "man-made contingency..." or some other damn full thing?

It's an Overseas Contingency Operation.

I assure you he believes those "Teabaggers" are FAR more threttening to national security than islamic Terrorists. Hell he won't even use the term. Here is a transcript of an audio from Eric Holder...

CONGRESSMAN POE: And in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

HOLDER: Because of?

CONGRESSMAN POE: Radical Islam?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It's — one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.

CONGRESSMAN POE: But radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why —

CONGRESSMAN POE: But is radical Islam one of them?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious —

CONGRESSMAN POE: I'm asking why you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.

HOLDER: Well, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a version of Islam that...

Ah, oh. So not Islam, not radical Islam but people. Might even be those crazy teabaggers.

HOLDER: I don't want to say anything negative about a religion.

CONGRESSMAN POE: I'm not talking about a religion. I'm talking about radical Islam. I'm not talking about the general religion.

HOLDER: Right. And I'm saying that a person like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings —

For the love of God! Listen to how far these people will go to defend radical Islam. There's no such thing as even radical Islam to him! There's not even anything that is radical about Islam, theres just radical tea party members.

So this is what they are? When you boil it down, they are just mad at the government, and it has nothing to do with anything? Yet these are the people that are already accusing tea partygoers of violence and being KKK members.

I simply can't believe that a man in his position can be this naive. Listen to Holder, They are not even looking for radical Islamist terrorists.

Now, I want to tell you something, America, that is going to make your blood boil so I'm going to ask you to breathe deep. I'm going to tell you pieces of a story and each piece is going to make you more and more angry. I just want you to breathe deep.

Piece Number 1: You know that ten years after the World Trade Center and we got nothing, right? We got nothing. Breathe deep. Ground Zero's just still a hole in the ground. We don’t even have a memorial done yet. — breathe deep. But right across the street from Ground Zero is a brand new 13 story mosque. Breathe deep. Breathe deep.

Can you even imagine that? A 13 story mosque across the street from the place where Islam murdered 3,000 Americans? It's grand opening is planned for...Breathe deep, Breathe deep. 9/11/11, on the tenth anniversary of Ground Zero, a new mosque opens up right across the street of Ground Zero. The design for the Ground Zero Mosque is a mockery of the World Trade Center site. The site is a cemetery for many of Islam’s victims. Islamic jihadists took down those buildings when they attacked and murdered 3,000 people in an act of conquest and Islamic supremacism. This is islams way of marking their territory, no different that a dog pissing on you fence post!

Any decent American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn’t dream of such an insult. It’s a stab in eye of America to plant a giant mosque on the still-barren land of the World Trade Center?

I just would like to point this out. Our kids are being expelled from school on a made up holiday, a holiday that's not even celebrated in Mexico. It's a made up holiday, a holiday that we celebrate, Cinco de Mayo, it was made up by Dos XX and Corona. Our children are being kicked out of school because they're insensitive for wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo on a T shirt, but nobody wants to talk about, oh, I don't know, how that might be a little insensitive to open and dedicate a 13 story mosque on the lip of the hole that is still there, the scar that is Ground Zero? You don't think it's a little insensitive to dedicate that mosque on 9/11 at Ground Zero?

Here is the "explanation" the Muslims gave:

"We've approached the community because we want this to be an example of how we are cooperating with the members of the community, not only to provide services but also to build a new discourse on how Muslims and non-Muslims can cooperate together to push back against the voices of extremism."

If Muslims want peace and understanding between cultures, why not allow a synagogue or Christian church to be built in Mecca --or anywhere in Saudi Arabia, for that matter?

Joan Brown Campbell, director of the Department of Religion at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York and former general secretary of the National Council of Churches, admitted that a mosque at Ground Zero could anger infidels. But it was worth it, she said: “Building so close is owning the tragedy.”

This best demonstrates the territorial nature of Islam. The very idea of building a mosque at Ground Zero is a manifestation of Islamic domination and expansionism.

The location is no accident. Just as it was no accident that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Obama: New unemployment figures "Rock!"

Unemployment went up to 9.9% form 9.7%. And according to the president and the media, this is good news. Even Rick Newman from US News & World Report wrote an article called "Why a Rising Unemployment Rate is Good News."

OBAMA: From the first days of this administration amidst the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression I've said that the truest measure of progress would be whether or not we were creating jobs. Today I'm happy to report that we've received encouraging news. In April the economy added 290,000 jobs with the majority coming from the private sector. This is the largest monthly increase in four years.

Now that's spin!

The President who promised he'd stop the oceans from rising hasn't been able to stop unemployment from doing the same. Despite the bad news, that's not stopping the President from turning that frown upside down! Here is the latest on the crappy numbers that the president thinks rock.

Nouriel Roubini, a professor of economics at the Stern School of Business, New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics thinks massive inflation is coming or loan default. But other than that, no big deal. That's Nouriel Roubini, a guy who was saying, "Oh, yeah, we're looking at a U shape, maybe a V shape recovery but probably a U shape." Now he's like, "I take that back. Thinking maybe we might have really bad inflation, dare I say it hyperinflation."

How can that happen? The jobless rate only went up two tenths of a point, but they added 290,000 jobs. That's the most in two years. Right back on track.

Well, not so fast. lets break those down a bit. Jobs up 290,000? Not in the private sector, the real number is 66,000, not 290,000. So what are the other 224,000 job? Well, their government jobs of course. The healthcare bill requires more IRS workers to make sure you pay your Healthcare tribute, fine, tax, fee, not sure what to call it actually. The job numbers also include temporary workers with the census bureau. But hay, a job is a job right?

The AP ran a story, "Jobs up 290,000." The State controlled AP tries really hard to start off here with great news, but if you keep reading, the last half of the AP article is very bad news. Now, three to four years ago, the last half of this article would have been the lead if George W. Bush were the president. Here's a quote at the end of the article: "All told, 15.3 million people were out of work in April." You take a look at a chart of employment, unemployment, from any… it's horrible. There's no good news at all in this cycle. It hasn't been since the Great Depression that we've had this kind of problem.

Lets look deeper into this "good news" shall we. "Counting people who have given up looking for work and part-timers who would prefer to be working full time, the so-called underemployment rate rose to 17.1 in April." This you read in the second half of the AP story. "That's close to the record high of 17.4 percent in October and shows just how difficult it is for jobseekers to find work. Another grim statistic:" -- from the second half of the AP story: -- "The number of people out of work six months or longer reached 6.7 million in April, a new high." So we've got all kinds of bad records being set in April, and yet the lead is, (paraphrase) "290,000 new jobs, unemployment up to 9.9%, the economy's turned a corner, we're back from the brink." And there's also a section in the second half of the story about wages and how they aren't anything to write home about. So the truth is this isn't good news, it's just being packaged that way. And everybody knows it!

Why are the numbers so upside down? Why is hiring up but unemployment is up as well? Because the government is expanding 40%, and Obama wants to speed up government hiring. But only 28% of the private sector is hiring. Now, normally in a recession 80% of the jobs are created by small business.

Now, if 40% of the government is hiring, the jobs are being created by the government. How do you continue to pay for all of the government employees? For instance, you're killing the private sector, and the private sector is the one that's selling stuff, making stuff, growing the economy. Creating tax revenue for these government job, right?

So, these people tax you, they tax me, the money goes into the government and then they take that, those tax dollars and pay the employees?

I know what your thinking, I don't know what you're not understanding here.

Well, I'm trying to figure out how that system works when everybody's working for the government and we're not really making anything anymore. Because wiothout tax dollars you can't pay government workers, because what do you pay people who are working for the government? You pay them — Tax dollars!

Well, ok, tax dollars are ONE of the type of dollars you can pay them with. You can also print money — then you have inflation. OR, you can borrow dollars, then you have debt which you have to repay (sorry, our grandchildren have to repay). And those dollars are effective in paying government employees right? It's not like the government at state or federal levels ever had to give out IOU's or anything.

WOW! We can print money? That's fantastic.

Just think of how many people you are going to need to run those printing presses to get those dollars to pay the government employees? That's even creating more jobs. Brilliant!

Can we come back form this "new norm" of high unemployment? Not for a long time according to economists. From the Associated Press story again, "High unemployment and sluggish wage gains are likely to prevent consumers from going on spending sprees any time soon. Small businesses, which usually help drive job creation during recoveries, are having trouble getting loans. That tight credit is crimping their ability to expand operations and hire. ... Many economists think it will take until at least the middle of the decade to lower the unemployment rate to a more normal 5.5 percent to 6 percent." Lawrence Summers, one of President Obama's economic advisors said back on April 30th, "This is the new norm." Nine to 10% unemployment is the new norm. Learn it, love it, live it, get used to it. Obama is going to have to create another 6.6 million jobs to get us back to where we were four years ago. He can start pounding the table here, 290,000 jobs created, which only 66,000 are actually private sector jobs.

OBAMA: The unemployment rate ticked up slightly from 9.7 to 9.9. Given the strength of these job numbers, this may seem contradictory but this increase is largely a reflection of the fact that workers who had dropped out of the workforce entirely are now seeking jobs again, encouraged by better prospects.

How do we know this? Again, counting people who have given up looking for work and part-timers who would prefer to be working full time, the so-called underemployment rate rose to 17.1% in April. That's close to the record high of 17.4% underemployment in October, and it shows just how difficult it is for job seekers to find work. And yet, according to Obama, it's so exciting out there, people can't wait, they're getting back in the job market, they're really encouraged out there by better prospects. Remember that grim statistic, the number of people out of work six months or longer that reached 6.7 million in April? These people made up 45.9% of all unemployed people, also a record high.

So if you read the whole AP story, you find out that we're looking at chronic unemployment, and it is not improving, there's no reason to celebrate here, and there's been nothing done to create an overwhelming market of job creation. Just the exact opposite. We're no different than Greece. We're not doing anything to spur job creation in the private sector. And if they want to credit the stimulus for this, if they want to try, fine, okay, you guys go ahead, you credit the stimulus. Never before has so much been spent to create so little as Barack Obama's stimulus plan to create jobs.

Understand something, these guys are out there trying to paint a picture here that doesn't exist, it's not right, and all of this, don't forget, all of this is simply whipping up the argument for higher taxes, which is coming down the pike. Here's another sound bite. This is Obama addressing the market and the crisis in Greece.

OBAMA: I want to speak to the unusual market activity that took place yesterday on Wall Street. The regulatory authorities are evaluating this closely with a concern for protecting investors and preventing this from happening again. And they will make findings of their review public along with recommendations for appropriate action. I also spoke this morning with German Chancellor Merkel regarding economic and financial developments in Europe. We agreed on the importance of a strong policy response by the affected countries and a strong financial response from the international community. I made clear that the United States supports these efforts and will continue to cooperate.

What are those efforts? What did Merkel do? Merkel joined in on bashing the banks. Merkel joined in on bashing the private sector. That's why Obama's happy. Make no mistake about what's going on here, folks. The communists, the anarchists are getting what they want. They are driving down the financial market. There's an all-out assault on capitalism all over the world. That's why Obama's happy about this, and he's happy to welcome Angela Merkel here to the little party that they're having. So here we are, for Obama, 9.9% is success. That's the bottom line. Obama can spin it all he wants, 9.9% unemployment is great news to Obama. Let's put the headline out there. "Obama: Great News, 9.9% Unemployment." The American people should take note the White House had a celebration today. Obama went out and took credit for 9.9% unemployment. Okay, so the Democrats and Obama in November can run on 9.9% unemployment as a great accomplishment. And maybe someday Obama can tell us where he thinks Greece went wrong.

I want to hear Obama tell us, where did Greece go wrong? Did they not tax the rich enough? Did the government not grow big enough? Did they not have enough public sector union people? Did they wait too long to go nationalize on their health care? What did they do wrong? So you Democrats, you're all happy, your president goes out there today, sings the praises, 9.9% unemployment. So I guess if we get to 10% unemployment in August, you'll really be happy, I mean the streets will be filled with joy because the definition of success, according to our own regime, is rising unemployment, 9.9%.

Christina Romer, this is on CNBC's Squawk on the Street, she is the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Erin Burnett said, "The unemployment rate is climbing, I guess because more people seeing hiring going on re-enter the job market?"

ROMER: Absolutely. It's something we've, again, been anticipating, that a lot of people in a recession this bad drop out of the labor force, a sort of natural part of the recovery. As we start to add jobs, those people come back in. And we had some 800,000 workers come back into the labor force in April. So that is certainly a consequence of that is that the unemployment rate did tick up.

Right! Unemployment went up because more people are looking for work and are willing to be counted again as out of work? So remember, this is from the regime's own wire service, AP, "counting people who have given up looking for work and counting part-timers who would prefer to be working full time, the so-called underemployment rate rose to 17.1%." So the unemployment rate rose to 9.9%. The underemployment rate rose to 17.1% in April, close to the record high of 17.4% in October, and shows just how difficult it is for job seekers to find work. They're celebrating people starting to look for work again, not celebrating people finding jobs. Another statistic: the number of people out of work six months or longer reached 6.7 million in April. That's a new high. So 15.3 million people out of work in April, unemployment, 9.7 to 9.9%. Underemployment rose to 17.1%. The number of people out of work six months or longer reached 6.7 million in April, a new high, and the regime threw a party outside the White House over this?

Here is a montage, by the way, just to show you how the coordination with the regime and the State-Controlled Media works. Real Pravda type stuff here. This is a montage of all the State-Run Media repeating the mantra that unemployment went up, a good sign because more people are looking for work.

STUART VARNEY: Workers flooded back into the labor market and pushed the unemployment rate up to 9.9%.

PETER COOK: (outdoor noise) That unemployment rate hitting nine point nine percent moving higher. It reflects more Americans trying to go out and find a job right now.

PETER BARNES: (outdoor noise) We saw a huge jump in the number of people who previously were out of the work force and wanted to get back in and start looking for work.

BILL HEMMER: The unemployment rate is up in April, hitting almost double digits, 9.9%, more than 800,000 Americans jumping back into the market.

JENNA LEE: Unemployment rate also moving higher to 9.9%. Now, that can mean that there's actually more people entering the labor force looking for work and that could actually be a positive sign.

There you have it. Unemployment is up, and that is good thing. The high unemployment rate is the new norm, better get used to that. This is not reality, but is how it's being spun.

Was the Gulf Oil Platform Explosion an Accident, Terrorism, or…?

What caused the explosion on the BP oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico on April 21st?

Why would the explosion on the surface of the platform create the situation in which crews are unable to stop the oil flow from the well’s head, which is nearly a mile deep?

The rig sank so fast that eleven workers were unable to escape, are missing and presumed dead. So I guess it’s possible that the sinking platform could have somehow irreparably damaged the pipeline at the floor of the Gulf, but it seems unlikely to me, with all the safety features on these rigs and wells.

Consider the fact that this happened ON EARTH DAY no less.

Call me a “crazy conspiracy theorist” but doesn’t all this seem just a bit suspicious?

One worker on the rig at the time of the explosion reported that the lights on the platform went out right before the explosion.

Rush Limbaugh pointed out that the explosion occurred on April 21st, the day before “Earth Day” (the explosion happened about 10:00 pm on April 20th). He also reminded us that Al Gore had previously encouraged environmental nutjobs to engage in civil disobedience against the construction of coal plants that don’t have carbon capture technology. “Eco-terrorists” exist and have done millions of dollars worth of criminal damage. Fire is one of the main tools of their evil trade.

Do I know if Deep Horizon was bombed by eco-terrorists? No! I think it would take some serious planning and backing to pull off an attack like that, so I would tend to think much bigger than college hippie eco-wackos, but some organization with some money-backing–a foreign government, perhaps is not out of the question.

But taking into account that two weeks latter we have a failed car bombing in NY, makes me wonder.

I just heard Michael Savage (not exactly the bastion of credibility I will grant you) posing the same questions. He also said there is a theory on a Russian website that claims North Korea is behind this. The article claims that North Korea torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon, which was apparently built and financed by South Korea.

Torpedoes would make sense for the results we see. The platform exploded, despite redundant safety features; plus, something apparently also happened on the Gulf floor at the opening of the well to prevent engineers from being able to stop the flow of oil from it. Two torpedoes launched from a submarine could cause those things to happen.

There are a number of international “suspects” who have the means, motive and opportunity to pull off something like this. They range from Muslim terrorists to the Chinese, to Venezuela and Iran. Remember China and Russia are drilling out there, as well, and they would most assuredly benefit from America cutting back on our own drilling.

Looking at the footage, my gut told me it was no accident. This kind of thing rarely happens. In fact, the Exxon Valdez not withstanding, there have been only two similar incidents in recorded history. On July 6, 1988, Occidental Petroleum’s Piper Alpha platform suffered a catastrophic explosion and fire, which killed 167 workers and destroyed the rig. The other incident was the Petrobras 36 Oil Platform (P-36) off the coast of Argentina, which was the largest floating production platform in the world prior to its sinking March 20, 2001. The first was caused by workers shutting down a pump then leving for the day before finishing the job. The second was caused by two unexplained explosions in the aft starboard column. The cause of the explosions was never determined.

The timing was just too “coincidental” for to overlook.

Last month, as a crumb thrown to Republicans for his Cap & Trade plan, Obama proposed new offshore oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean from Delaware to central Florida, plus the northern waters of Alaska. Obama also suggested lifting a drilling ban in the oil-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico, 125 miles from Florida beaches.

This hyperbole goes against everything Obama stands for and has done since usurping the presidency. They had to create a reason to renege on this proposal or lose the support of his radical environmentalist base. How convenient that the BP rig would choose this particular time to blow up and cause a massive oil spill. The White House now says it “will not go forward with new offshore drilling until the oil spill cause has been reviewed,” and then what?

Obama said he has ordered Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to invistigate what happened and report within 30 days. In the mean time, he has ordered the shut down of all Gulf oil production rigs. Can you say $5.00/gal for gasoline before the summer?

If this really was an act of aggression by a foreign government, I seriously doubt we will be allowed to know it. The Obama administration is still covering up the details behind the act of war committed against our country at Fort Hood by a Muslim operative who had infiltrated our Military. Plus the administration has stated in the past that wants to destroy the coal industry and thinks that oil companies are evil.

The government cannot pass laws to prevent accidents. Even if Obama, Schumer and Durban were operating the rig themselves, there would still be accidents. If government could legislate against accidents, then why do we still have auto collisions since the government took over GM/Chrysler? Occasionally, airplanes are going to crash, and cranes are going to topple over no matter what the government says or does.

This BP oil rig is state of the art and less than 10 years old. It survived hurricane Katrina. It is a floating rig, designed to drill wells up to 30,000 feet deep in waters up to 8,000 feet deep. At the time of the explosion, the rig had completed its drilling operations and was being decoupled from the well. It would be move off and replaced with a pumping and processing platform.

BP was a partner in the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a group that includes chief executives from several corporate giants as well as influential environmental organizations like the Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund.

According to the USCAP website: “United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change.”

The climate partnership’s Blueprint for Legislative Action, released in January 2009, called for a federal cap-and-trade system, significant allocation of free allowances, carbon capture and storage incentives, and a midterm emissions reduction goal of 80 to 86 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.

Last February, BP America, Conoco-Phillips and Caterpillar announced they were discontinuing their membership in USCAP after becoming aware of the harmful effects Cap & Trade would have on their businesses, and their inability to comply with it while still maintaining a profit margin. BP’s “Beyond Petroleum,” green energy commercials are no longer airing.

Did that make the BP platform a target of environmental terrorists or the Obama regime in Washington? Was the BP platform intentionally blown up to create negative sentiment against offshore oil production?

We may never know, but again, one has to question the timing and overlook a lot of “coincidences.” And nothing is beyond the realm of possibility with this Chicago Marxist regime in Washington. There are no coincidences with this regime, and nothing is as it appears. The regime loves a crisis, whether real or manufactured. How convenient to have a major oil disaster in the gulf at a time when Cap & Trade is about to come to the floor of the Senate. Remember what Rahm Emanuel said: “Never let a crisis go to waste. It’s an opportunity to get things done you couldn’t ordinarily do.” But this time, the crisis is real and had natural causes. The gas pressure was simply too strong for the sea water counter-pressure being applied by the rig to contain it.

It is understandable that there would be suspicions about this being an accident or an act of terrorism. Remember what happened last year - the first year of the Obama regime? First, Obama took over GM and Chrysler. The next thing we know is Toyota’s accelerator problems are all over the news. The cause of the problem has still not been found. Then, of course, we have the congressional inquisition of Goldman Sachs just as financial reform legislation hit’s the floor of congress - even if the Goldman Sachs hearing is nothing more than just a show trial. Coincidences? I don’t think so.

Shrimpers in Louisiana and Alabama have already filed lawsuits against BP and the owners of the Deepwater Horizon rig, each seeking damages of at least $5 million for anticipated economic losses before they have even happened. The lawsuits also name Cameron International Corp, which supplied the rig’s blowout prevention equipment that they claim had failed. It is probable that the blowout valve was disabled by the explosion rather than a fault with the equipment.

Interestingly enough, they have even brought Halliburton Energy Services Inc. into the lawsuit, which was engaged in cementing operations of the well. The claim is that Halliburton did not pour the cement right. Why didn’t they name the U.S. Government in the suit as well for issuing the permit for the oil rig in the first place? Wasn’t the Interior Department also negligent in knowing that there was a possibility of an accident in spite of everything humanly possible being done to prevent it?

Isn’t it amazing that Shrimpers and their lawyers know so much more about how oil rigs are constructed and the cause of this explosion than anyone else? No doubt, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush will be blamed for this as well by the left.

Kos Article Says Number of Abortions May be ‘Too Low’ - On left-wing Web site calls more abortions ‘moral’; another article calls new Oklahoma abortion law ‘blackmail.’

By Sarah Knoploh
Culture and Media Institute
April 29, 2010

April 28 was apparently Abortion Uber Alles day at the liberal Web site Daily Kos. Aimee Thorne-Thomsen of the Pro-Choice Public Education Project stated that the number of women who receive abortions is “too low” in “Keep Abortions Safe and Legal? Yes. Make it Rare? Not the Point.” A separate article blasted the new law in Oklahoma that makes it mandatory for woman to receive ultrasounds by making crude comparisons and calling it “blackmail.”

Even though 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005, this was not enough for Thorne-Thomsen. She wrote, “On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low.”

She never explained how many abortions a year would be enough for the Pro-Choice Public Education Project, but continued to write, “We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions.”

Of course, Thorne-Thomsen didn’t “care for women” enough to mention the negative consequences of abortions. Suicide, depression, infections, sterility, and even death can result from abortions, according to National Right to Life.

Rather, as an abortion absolutist, she asked, “Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?”

Unfortunately, the other Daily Kos article about abortion was not any better. The author complained that Oklahoma’s new abortion law, which mandates that women undergo an ultrasound of their fetus before aborting, is “tantamount to emotional blackmail. And it's not even blackmail of a particularly subtle variety. It's insulting and demeaning and humiliating and patronizing all at once.”

The author described that in the earlier stages of pregnancies the fetus resembles a “fleshy jellybean” and complained that Oklahoma has become, “a testing ground for radical anti-abortion lawmaking.”

The author also felt that having a pregnant woman view her fetus before receiving an abortion is the same as:

A: Setting a firefighter on fire before he can rush into a burning building
B: Requiring a soldier to get shot before he is issued a firearm
C: Showing a man seeking a vasectomy his own vas deferens by sticking a camera in through his urethra.

Not really anywhere equivalent to a pregnant woman looking at her unborn baby before an abortion. But good enough for the abortion absolutists at Daily Kos.

Reason #1,592,951,832,267 the Arizona immigration law is needed!

7 Mexican police officers killed in Ciudad Juarez

Associated Press CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico - Gunmen ambushed two police vehicles at a busy intersection in this drug- and violence-plagued city, killing seven officers and a 17-year-old boy who was passing by, authorities said.

Using the Oklahoma City Bombing

By Debra Saunders-GOPUSA.com

Monday was the anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that left 149 men and women -- most of them federal workers -- and 19 children dead. As is his habit, former President Bill Clinton used the occasion to bash his critics.

In a New York Times opinion piece, "What We Learned in Oklahoma City," Clinton placed the blame on Americans who have advocated smaller government. The terrorists -- bomber Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices -- who targeted the Murrah Federal Building, he wrote, "took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them."

When a former president seizes such a tragedy for partisan purposes, it is no wonder a new Pew Research poll found that a modest 22 percent of voters say they trust Washington to do the right thing most of the time.

Clinton wrote that while criticism is "part of the lifeblood of democracy ... we should remember that there is a big difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government that guarantees our freedom and public servants who enforce our laws."

What I want to know is: Other than the twisted McVeigh and company, who is not clear on this difference? Does Clinton think his all his critics are stupid, or is he playing stupid?

But wait, there's more. Clinton continued, "We must all assume responsibility for our words and actions before they enter a vast echo chamber and reach those both serious and delirious, connected and unhinged."

Think about that for a minute: If anyone were to cast blame for the Fort Hood shootings that left 13 dead, or any other attacks within American military bases, on the antiwar movement, then that assertion would be followed by howls of outrage, and deservedly so. It would be absurd to suggest that opposition to the war be misconstrued as promoting violence against U.S. troops.

Yet somehow arguing against President Obama's health care plan can be construed as practically an incitement to violence.

And it doesn't matter if you blamed cult leader David Koresh -- not federal agents -- for the violence that claimed more than 80 lives in Waco in 1993. Or that you urged the death penalty as the only fitting punishment for McVeigh. Somehow if you oppose the expansion of the federal government, you are responsible for the violence that you abhor.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations echoed Clinton in a press news release commemorating the Oklahoma City deaths that berated "experts," who initially blamed Muslim extremists for the bombing, then cited the need to "recognize that the same anti-government extremism that led to the attack is growing and is unfortunately moving toward the mainstream."

The press news release then went on to denounce "stereotyping." Really.

So what did Clinton learn from Oklahoma City? He learned that he could drive the wedge that divides the electorate even deeper -- and in so doing, endear himself to the element of his party smitten with itself. But outside the Clinton echo chamber, it sounds like whimpering.

Glenn the seditionist

According to Time magazine, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others are seditionists. They are deemed so because they dare to disagree with the anointed one. Now of course those who screamed at the moon under Bush were patriots exercising their right of free speech. So using the "logic" of Time magazine, only liberals have free speech and all others who disagree with them are seditionists.

But what exactly is a seditionist? Joe Klein from Time magazine, who has apparently figured out that the only way someone will ever read his material is if he writes something mean about Glenn, so he had to look up the word sedition (not kidding) and write it on a napkin and tell Chris Matthews about it. Ironically, the amount of evidence against Glenn would have fit on the same napkin -- he had ZERO examples.

So while appearing on MSNBC news with Chris Matthews Klein said this:

KLEIN: And she said, un American. Now, she said it was just his policies, not him, but those words are license words. They're permission words, you know?

O'DONNELL: Yeah.

PARKER: They're...(unintelligible).

KLEIN: You know, I did I did a little bit of research just before the show, it's no this little napkin here. I looked up the definition of sedition, which is "conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state." And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck, and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right next right up close to being seditious.

MATTHEWS: OK.

HEILEMANN: Well, and this is and, you know, Joe's right, and I I'll name another person. You know, name Rush Limbaugh, you know, who uses this phrase constantly, talks about the Obama administration as a regime.

How many times did Time magazine call the Bush administration a regime? Well I did a little checking and I think it was 16 in all. The first time they called the Bush administration a regime was one month into his administration. One month. Time magazine did. Chris Matthews himself has said it, the New York Times has said it and Time said it the most. Again they said it 16 times, his own publication.

This is just so ridiculous. Now, according to Klein, for someone to speak out is sedition. I would challenge you to find that in the words of our founders. In fact, I believe it's in the Declaration of Independence that when a people find the government to be oppressive, it is our duty, it's our duty to shake it off and to reconstitute a new government.

Funny thing, this is something that Judge Napolitano talked about at the American Revival a lot, the Sedition Act of 1798 with John Adams. It's so dangerous because they have this threat, we thought, and I think it was legitimate from the French that they were going to overthrow our government. They got nervous about that and so they passed this alien and sedition act.

A lot of history scholars think Adams was kind of pushed into this by a lot of his advisors and the people of his administration but the fact is he signed it into law and so for, what, four years until Jefferson was able to overturn it, it was really a blight in American history. And now you have people like Bill Clinton, who are continually talking about the returning to the free speech of our founders. Really? Again, I guess he meant the free speech for him and his people not for Glenn Beck Rush, Hannity and the Tea Party people.

If this is not true, Then why do they want to regulate the internet? The last bastion of truly free speech. What is the Internet? The Internet is the modern day printing press. It is what Thomas Paine would be using today.

See, this is why this sedition act and everything else is a ruse. They are going to take out Fox News, without an event, They are going to take out Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, are they going to do that? Really?

If they can get away with it, yes!

Understand on thing, the real target is not Glenn or Rush or Fox. It's not. The target is you. If you notice, if you really read what president Clinton said, he said this on Friday, what he talked about was talk radio and the Internet. He talked about control of the Internet. Now, is it just happenstance that we're setting up for an emergency and control of the Internet when Net neutrality has just been deemed unconstitutional by the courts and Obama says we'll do it one way or another, we'll do it through the FCC, we'll just make the Internet a utility. And then a week later Bill Clinton, speaking at the Center For American Progress, the Soros group, which is a big supporter of Internet neutrality, now all of a sudden he comes out and says this?

By the way, a month ago Bill Clinton came out and said that the tea partiers were the same kind of movement as the Contract For America in the Revolution of 1994, the Republican revolution. Well, which is it now, Bill, and what changed your mind? What makes the tea party the Republican Revolution in 1994 and now today makes it Timothy McVeigh? Did you have a conversation with someone? Did it happen to be at the Center For American Progress? What changed your mind on that, Mr. Clinton? Could you help us?

Again, the target is not Glenn. It's not Rush. It is you. Government can find a way can silence Glenn or Rush, but as long as you can speak out, you are a danger to their power.

Take a look what they're doing now. There was a court case where they say you have no reason to expect privacy on your cell phone, in your Internet, Internet mail. They can, without a warrant, go and check your e-mail. Funny, remember when Bush was lambasted for wanting to snoop in on Terrorists cell phone calls and Internet chats and e-mail? The reaction from the likes of Clinton was righteous indignation. The NYT made it front page news. Did you hear about this case? Didn't think so!

But that's what they are fighting for now in the court. Right now, no federal security workers can snoop through more than your luggage. But, if you are deemed near a border, they can actually open up your computer and go through your entire computer. They can go through your phones, they can read your e-mails, they can do everything. A digital seizure.

Now if you are within 100 miles from Canada or Mexico, if you are traveling between Los Angeles and Phoenix, you can be stopped by the Department of Homeland Security and literally asked for your papers, drug dogs could be brought into the back of your vehicle without any reason. Doesn't the Fourth Amendment guarantee the right of Americans to be secure in their persons, their houses, their papers and their effects? It doesn't mean just papers. It means digital as well. But see, if they can say that you don't have a right to security on online, security in your e-mail, security on your cell phone, they even are making the case now that you, because your cell phone can triangulate, they don't need a warrant to say, where's Glenn Beck now? You don't have a reasonable right to privacy of location; the government is making this case now.

Are you kidding me? If they can scare you into silence, they will. If they can use an "emergency" to take away your voice, they will. If they can do it legally, they will. If the court stops them, they will just change one way or another and Barack Obama said this over and over again. They will get it done one way or another.

Eternal vigilance people, Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and it is under attack like never before.

Black Tea Party Activists Called 'Traitors'

ALBANY, N.Y. – They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation's first black president.

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.

"You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition.

But these black conservatives don't consider racism representative of the movement as a whole — or race a reason to support it.

Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is "not about a black or white issue."

"It's not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint," she told The Associated Press. "All of us are taxed too much."

Still, she's in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it's believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.

Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama's election — and their distaste for his policies — with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.

For black candidates like McGlowan, tea party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message.

"I'm so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys," the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a tea party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.

Tea party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives — away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.

Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.

Black conservatives don't want to have to apologize for their divergent views.

"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

"I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"

Among the 37 black Republicans running for U.S. House and Senate seats in November is Charles Lollar of Maryland's 5th District.

A tea party supporter running against House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Lollar says he's finding support in unexpected places.

The 38-year-old U.S. Marine Corps reservist recently walked into a bar in southern Maryland decorated with a Confederate flag. It gave his wife Rosha pause.

"I said, 'You know what, honey? Many, many of our Southern citizens came together under that flag for the purpose of keeping their family and their state together,'" Lollar recalled. "The flag is not what you're to fear. It's the stupidity behind the flag that is a problem. I don't think we'll find that in here. Let's go ahead in."

Once inside, they were treated to a pig roast, a motorcycle rally — and presented with $5,000 in contributions for his campaign.

McGlowan, one of three GOP candidates in north Mississippi's 1st District primary, seeks a seat held since 2008 by The National Republican Congressional Committee has supported Alan Nunnelee, chairman of the state Senate Appropriations Committee, who is also pursuing tea party voters.

McGlowan believes the tea party movement has been unfairly portrayed as monolithically white, male and middle-aged, though she acknowledged blacks and Hispanics are a minority at most events.

Racist protest signs at some tea party rallies and recent reports by U.S. Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., that tea partyers shouted racial and anti-gay slurs at them have raised allegations of racism in the tea party movement.

Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think — something that offensive — you would think someone got video of it," Bazar, the conservative blogger, said.

"Just because you have one nut case, it doesn't automatically equate that you've got an organization that espouses (racism) as a sane belief," Johnson said.

Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, suggested a bit of caution.

"I'm sure the reason that (black conservatives) are involved is that from an ideological perspective, they agree," said Shelton. "But when those kinds of things happen, it is very important to be careful of the company that you keep."

Alinsky's Avenging Angels: Tea Party Saboteurs

by Michelle Malkin

One of the popular signs spotted at Tea Party protests across the country over the past year goes like this: "It doesn't matter what this sign says. You'll call it racism, anyway!" It's a pithy, perfect rejoinder to the fusillade of attacks that limited-government activists have weathered from their Democratic detractors and a hostile national media. Committed Alinsky-ites never let reality get in the way of a good Tea Party-bashing narrative.

The radical acolytes of Chicago's late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky also understand the importance of manufacturing demons. "Before men can act," Alinsky preached, "an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil." This explains the left's relentless campaign to sabotage the anti-tax, anti-bailout movement from Day One.

President Obama's community organizing allies whispered "racist," "fascist" and "fringe" in the earliest days of the stimulus demonstrations in January and February 2009, when hundreds of first-time protesters turned out on the streets in Washington State, Colorado, Arizona and Kansas. The whispers turned to hysterical screams as hundreds became thousands and thousands became millions of peaceful marchers who gathered for the first nationwide Tax Day Tea Party. Some fringe, huh?

The latest effort to smear Tea Partiers involves self-appointed agents provocateurs who are organizing a "Crash the Tea Party" campaign to discredit the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party by making up bogus racist signs and providing false portrayals of grassroots activists to the press. An online punk, Jason Levin, is spearheading the infiltration effort to "act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities" and "damage the public's opinion of them." Never mind that public opinion polls now show that the majority of Americans stand with the core principles of fiscal responsibility espoused by Tea Party activists.

Levin may be a lone wolf operator, but he has many fellow travelers in the Democratic establishment and left-wing fever swamps. And their efforts wouldn't be possible without friendlies in the press who have openly insulted Tea Party activists with endless vulgar sexual taunts and Taliban comparisons.

A few months ago, Craig Varoga -- a Washington-based Democratic political operative and overseer of a convoluted, money-shuffling web of political action committees -- launched "TheTeaPartyisOver.org" to target Republicans who supported the Tea Party movement. The site declared that it would prevent the "radical" and "dangerous" fiscal accountability agenda from "gaining legislative traction." Varoga's money funneling is designed to obscure the Big Labor/progressive funding of his enterprises under the umbrella of his "American Public Policy Center (APPC)."

After conservative blogs and Fox News exposed his deceptive web of grassroots groups, Varoga password-protected his website so that the Democratic plotting against Tea Party activists could be conducted out of view.

I speak from direct experience about the underhandedness of Tea Party smear merchants. On Feb. 17, 2009, at one of the country's first tax revolt rallies in Denver, a man approached me amid a throng of bona fide anti-stimulus protesters and thrust a camera in my face. I obliged cheerfully, as I usually do after such speaking events. I later learned from the character assassins at Progress Now, a left-wing outfit that just happened to be there and just happened to snap a close-up photo of the interaction, that the man pulled out a sign at the last minute (which I didn't see until later) sporting Obama's name with a swastika on it. He held the sign away from me, but in direct view of the Progress Now cameraperson.

That cameraperson just happened to be a former CNN producer, whose blog post on the photo just happened to be immediately disseminated by the local press and to the hit men at the radical-left Media Matters website. The narrative was set: A conservative supporter of the nascent Tea Party movement posed for a photo with a man holding up a swastika at a protest against out-of-control spending! Ergo, the anti-stimulus protesters and the entire Tea Party membership are all racist, fascist menaces to society!

Fast-forward to April 2010. Alinsky's avenging angels have declared open warfare on April 15. Will they be enabled again by "mainstream journalists" who have turned their Tea Party reporting assignments into search-and-destroy missions? The signs point to yes.

SEIU: White Workers Are So 'F---ing Rabidly Racist'

Immigration Reform (a.k.a. amnesty)is a key SEIU issue as it would allow the unions to add millions of members to its rolls, filling its bank accounts, while bringing its failing pension plans closer to solvency. Unfortunately for the union much of its membership is very much opposed to amnesty. According to Executive VP Gerry Hudson even the African-American union members are very anti-illegal immigration. But in the video above Hudson reveals his strategy. He portrays the African-American workers as easy dupes "it doesn't take a whole lot to argue African-American workers to another place." But those white workers are "so f***ing rabidly racist." All Hudson has to do to motivate the African-Americans is point over there to the white guys and say "look at what's there."

Is the American Press Corrupt?

by Bill O'Reilly

While many Americans believe the national press is biased toward the left, a more damning charge is now being debated: Are U.S. media outlets actually corrupt? Those who believe they are point to the cheerleading of Barack Obama's presidential campaign and to the recent reportage on the Tea Party movement.

As you may know, the Tea Party people have been branded in some media quarters as a bunch of racist, far-right loons. TV commentators on MSNBC and CNN have actually called the Tea Party folks dirty names on the air -- all in an attempt to diminish the growing influence of the movement.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the gutter. Regular Americans have apparently opted to decide for themselves about the Tea Party, and the polling is interesting. Despite all the rhetorical madness on TV, a new Gallup poll says 28 percent of Americans support the movement, 26 percent oppose it and 38 percent have not yet formed an opinion about support or opposition. Thus, there is a persuadable factor in play, and that is what the liberal media fear the most.

This time last year, there was no Tea Party. Now, it is perhaps the most vibrant political force in the country. If millions more Americans sign on, liberalism will take a huge hit. By the way, Gallup also reports that the Tea Party movement breaks down this way: 49 percent Republican, 43 percent Independent and 8 percent Democratic. The issue that binds the Tea Party folks together is fear of big government.

When the Founding Fathers granted the press privileges beyond those of everyday citizens, they did so with some trepidation. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, opposites in political thinking, both loathed the early press in America because it often operated irresponsibly; that is, it was not unusual for money to change hands in the production of a news story.

But Jefferson, Adams and their peers understood that the people needed information in order to make informed decisions at the voting booth. Therefore, the greater good was served by allowing a free press in the hope that the honest journalists would outnumber the dishonest ones.

Today, we have a problem in America. Entire news operations are devoting themselves not to reporting events honestly, but to promoting a certain ideology or party. The Fox News Channel, where I work, has been accused of this. But a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that FNC's coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign was tough on both candidates, while most other news networks blatantly favored Obama.

Now we have a systematic media campaign to demean the Tea Party movement. At first, organizations like The New York Times ignored the movement. Then they mocked it. Neither worked. As the rallies grew larger, the liberal press got meaner. There was little reporting being done -- it was all about bashing.

This isn't bias; it's corruption. News organizations are supposed to be watchdogs, not attack dogs. The Tea Party should be scrutinized like every other political movement. But that's not what's going on here. A large part of the national media is out to destroy these folks. And that's flat-out wrong.

Wealth for the "Common Good"

Like all progressives, they assess the situation and arrive at the wrong conclusion! But don’t take my word for it, here’s “The Nation” on why we MUST tax the “rich” more! And by "rich" they mean anybody but THEM!

The Nation -- The challenge for progressives and Democrats in these turbulent times is how to consistently and clearly explain the real causes of our current economic condition.

One problem is that we live in a center-left country with a center-right media that consistently misinforms people about the perils of debts, deficits, and tax increases, and purveys misinformation about a good but modest health care bill that rightwing talk radio, tea partiers and GOPsters would have Americans believe is a "socialist" power grab.

It's against that political backdrop that a just-released report from Wealth for the Common Good--a network of business leaders, high-income households and partners working together to promote shared prosperity and fair taxation--is a welcome and common sense antidote. History is always important, especially in the "US of Amnesia"--as writer Gore Vidal once put it--and this tight, fact-filled report gives us the history we need to understand how enormous tax cuts over the last 50 years have favored the wealthiest Americans at the expense of a strong and secure middle class. Its must-read facts and common sense ideas deserve and demand as much media attention as the tea partiers' kvetching.

What's crystal clear in this well-documented report--whose title might have been "The Real Story Behind Today's Unfair Economy"--is that the middle-class has largely been shafted by both Republicans and Democrats, whose campaign coffers are equally greased by wealthy donors. And the shift in the tax burden has fueled a rising inequality and concentration of wealth that weakens our democracy--as The Nation argued in its June 30, 2008 special issue, "The New Inequality."

That shift is clear just looking at the tax rates paid by the wealthiest Americans. From 1950 to 1963--even under that radical Republican President Dwight Eisenhower--the federal tax rate on personal income over $400,000 never dropped below 91 percent. Between 1936 and 1980 it never dropped below 70 percent. But today, the top personal income tax rate after the 2001 Bush tax cut is just 35 percent, and you can count on one hell of a fight with ConservaDems and the GOP just to let that expire at the end of this year so the rate will return to the modest 39.6 percent level of the Clinton years. The tax rate on capital gains--which most benefits those in the highest income brackets--dropped to 15 percent in 2003, down from as high as 39.9 percent in 1977.

With all the fury about the debt and deficits, it's worth reminding ourselves that if we close a few loopholes for the very rich, then presto, the current deficit would be significantly smaller. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy between 2001-2008 cost the US Treasury $700 billion, with all of these billions added directly to the national debt. Retaining these tax cuts will cost $826 billion over the next decade. But while Bush exacerbated the tax shift, it was largely a done deal before he took office. Check out these stunning stats:

Between 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers have seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop from 60 to 33.6 percent. The top 400 income-earners have seen the share of their income they pay in federal income tax alone plummet from 51.2 percent in 1955 to 16.6 percent in 2007.

In 2007, if the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers had paid total federal taxes at the same rate as they paid in 1960, the federal treasury would have collected an additional $281.2 billion. If the top 400 had paid the same rate as it did in 1955 it would have meant an additional $47.7 billion in revenue. (The incomes of the top 400 have multiplied by 27 times--adjusted for inflation--since 1955, yet back then they paid over three times more of their incomes in federal income tax.)

Meanwhile, the middle class has seen their taxes increase. The report lays out that, "Despite all the 'tax cut' political rhetoric and action of recent years, average Americans have seen no tax savings at the federal level."

Taxpayers in the middle--who made more than the bottom 40 percent but less than the top 40 percent--saw an increase in their taxes, paying 15.9 percent of their incomes in total federal taxes in 1960 and 16.1 percent in 2004. Adding insult to injury, "Our children and grandchildren... will be asked to pay back, with interest, the trillions our federal government has been borrowing to offset our loss of tax revenue from wealthy taxpayers."

The result of this imbalanced, unjust, and out-of-whack tax shift?

A public investment deficit--seen in our crumbling infrastructure, lack of investment in a robust green economy, and rising tuition costs at public universities, to name just a few areas--and a concentration of wealth and power that bought a deregulated casino economy and subsequent economic collapse that the rest of us are paying for.

Yet despite this historic shift in the tax burden, the debate we are having on tax reform is inadequate to say the least.

What's really shocking is we can't even manage Tax Reform 101--to tax the hedge fund managers like we do normal working people. They pay a stunning 15 percent on their billions--a lower rate than teachers, cops, even their own assistants! (see here, here, and here.) And a 2008 GAO report found that two-thirds of US corporations paid zero federal income taxes from 1998-2005. Twenty-five percent of the largest US corporations had $1.1 trillion in gross sales in 2005 but paid no federal income taxes. Where is the debate on corporate tax rates and loopholes? If corporations are now people, can't they start paying taxes like people too? (Not if their new Supreme Court-sponsored campaign ads can help it.)

Here are some examples of what a smart tax reform program would look like as prescribed by the Wealth for the Common Good report: End the income tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 and raise capital gains and dividend rate from 15 to 20 percent ($45 billion increase in revenues); a progressive estate tax on estates worth over $2 million or $4 million for a couple--taxing no more than one in every 200 estates--generating $40 billion immediately and over $100 billion a decade from now; end overseas tax havens used by the likes of Citigroup and Best Buy ($100 billion per year); a modest financial transaction tax ($100 billion per year); a new 50 percent tax bracket for income over $2 million ($60 billion per year).

This is the kind of common sense, creative thinking that needs to be taken up by elected officials who understand that another generation of this tax madness will lead to ever higher concentrations of wealth, gut an already weakened middle class, and unravel the American Dream.

Can you say socialism? Sure, I knew you could!

NO FREE SPEECH FOR YOU!

by David Harsanyi - Townhall.com

So Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is demanding that citizens justify their political speech under oath. Nervous Nellies doubtlessly will characterize this as an "overreach." Crybabies will grouse about the "chilling" effect or the "muzzling" of dissent.

Yet in these heady days of change, it's all about context. In this case, you'll be relieved to know, we're talking about CEOs. These people take home considerably more pay than I do. Accordingly, they deserve to sit through hours of absurd inquires from sanctimonious politicians as a matter of karmic justice.

What they don't deserve is free speech. The president ably expounded on the matter in the State of the Union address: Corporations should not be entitled to the same constitutional protections as the rest of us.

With this in mind, it should surprise no one that Waxman has requested the "personal testimony" of a few CEOs, who have reported billions of dollars in negative impact to their businesses -- per Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements -- because of the passage of health care reform.

In the letter, Waxman asserts, "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern." And everyone knows that it is impossible for legislation to have unintended consequences.

Whom are you going to believe, numbers or Joe Biden?

This cabal of profiteering is headed up by AT&T ($1 billion first-quarter charge), Boeing ($150 million), John Deere ($150 million), Caterpillar ($100 million), 3M, AK Steel, Verizon, Prudential, the lodging industry ... and so forth and so on, until we hit on every single company affected by the elimination of a tax break on retiree drug benefits. It likely will cost employees and thus consumers an estimated $14 billion -- not counting the new Medicare costs.

Boy, if only these corporations had something akin to a Congressional Budget Office. Bean counters could conceal costly programs on separate balance sheets and add bogus cost-saving measures to the ones they present to shareholders.

Then again, what works for Congress amounts to a prison term out in the corporate world. So for now, businesses rely on Arabic numerals (lest we need another reason to question their patriotism) and arithmetic (in this case, lots of subtraction).

Some may wonder whether Waxman has any lawful grounds to bully anyone into accepting his view of Obamacare. Even if corporations, typically snuggling up to Washington for crony capitalistic favors, had joined in a twisted political conspiracy to make Barack Obama's legislative masterpiece look as terrible as it is ... so what? Since when is making a law look bad a criminal act?

The ironic part of Waxman's abuse of power is that he also demands that CEOs show up with "any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform."

Would it not be helpful for Congress to first provide taxpayers with any and all documents -- including e-mail messages sent to or prepared or reviewed by elected officials -- regarding this historic health care reform bill?

Maybe if Congress applied a fraction of the transparency it demands from corporate America to its own dealings, it wouldn't have to rely on pompous bullies like Waxman to stifle free speech.

How the Left Fakes the Hate: A Primer

by Michelle Malkin

If you can't stand the heat, manufacture a hate-crime epidemic.

After years of covering racial hoaxes on college campuses and victim sob stories in the public arena, I've encountered countless opportunists who live by that demented mindset. At best, the fakers are desperately seeking 15 minutes of infamy. At worst, their aim is the criminalization of political dissent.

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health care "reform" victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there's a Tea Party epidemic of racism, harassment and violence against them.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen accused Republican leaders of "stoking the flames." Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn accused the GOP of "aiding and abetting" what he called "terrorism."

Yet, the claims that Tea Party activists shouted "nigger" at black House Democrats remain uncorroborated. The coffin reportedly left outside Missouri Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan's home was used in a prayer vigil by pro-life activists in St. Louis protesting the phony Demcare abortion-funding ban in Obama's deal-cutting executive order. Videotape of a supposed intentional spitting incident targeting Missouri Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver at the Capitol shows no such thing. Cleaver himself backed off the claim a few days later. He described his heckler to The Washington Post in more passive terms as "the man who allowed his saliva to hit my face." Slovenliness equals terrorism!

The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation -- that Tea Party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello's brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the Tea Party reign of terror.

Need more reasons to treat the latest Democratic hysteria with a grain of salt the size of their gargantuan health care bill? Remember:

-- In November 2009, Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word "Fed" scrawled on his chest and a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, Huffington Post and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans and right-wing radio. Federal, state and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate-crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

-- In mid-October 2008, news outlets from Scranton, Pa., to ABC News to the Associated Press and MSNBC reported that someone at a Sarah Palin rally shouted "kill him" when Obama's name was mentioned. In fact, the Secret Service (which was at the event in full force) couldn't find a single person to corroborate the story -- other than the local reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune who made an international incident out of the claim. Agent Bill Slavoski "said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers, and not one heard the comment," the paper reported in a red-faced follow-up. Maybe the shouter is hiding with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman's real killer.

-- In late October 2008, a gaggle of liberal blogs spread the rumor that a Republican supporter of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's had shouted that Obama was "a nigger" during a campaign rally in Iowa. Video and firsthand accounts showed that the protester did not shout "he's a nigger," but "he's a redistributor." A lefty activist at the "progressive" Daily Kos blog confirmed the truth -- but to this day, the crisis-manufacturing smear stands uncorrected and unretracted across the Internet.

-- In September 2009, supporters of Colorado Democratic Rep. John Salazar falsely accused a town hall protester of hurling a death threat at the congressman. Liberal blogs again disseminated the angry Tea Party mob narrative. A week later, the local press quietly reported that Grand Junction police had investigated the incident -- and determined the claim was "unfounded." A police spokeswoman revealed that "(p)eople who witnessed the interaction between the man who made the complaint and the suspect confirmed they never heard any direct threats made regarding Congressman Salazar." Witnesses included a Grand Junction cop "in close proximity when the interaction took place."

-- In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic Party decried a vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. A hammer-wielding thug smashed 11 windows and caused $11,000 in property damage. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left nutball/transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for an SEIU-tied 527 group and canvassed for a Democratic candidate. Nevertheless, Colorado Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak continued to blame "people opposed to health care" for the attack.

Then, as now, being a Democratic Party official means never having to say you're sorry for smearing conservative dissent.

I want my Health Care NOW!

According to Barack Obama, the Healthcare bill is so great that once we see what's in it, it will be like Christmas and we will all be thanking him for this wonderful gift form our benevolent overlords in government. You know, we're going to have chocolate rivers and oompa loompas making candy bars and stuff.

Here is comrade Obama speaking Sunday night...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Tonight after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration, After decades of trying and a year of sustained effort and debate, the United States congress finally declared that America's workers and America's families and America's small businesses deserve the security of knowing that here in this country neither illness, or accident should endanger the dreams they have worked a lifetime to achieve. Tonight At a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible. We rose above the weight of our politics. We pushed back on the undue influence of special interests.

He pushed back on the undue influence of special interests? You mean special interests like SEIU, the Center For American Progress, the Apollo Alliance, AFL CIO or AARP? No I think the "special interests" he really hates are the American people.

The president and congress spent the entire year pushing back against 65% of the American people but just couldn't find the time to "push back" against the prescription drug companies. They gave special sweetheart deals to the pharmaceuticals who then pumped millions of dollars into an ad campaign to get this thing passed. All the while they demonized them behind their backs. Surely there was no deals with those evil insurance companies?

Yeah, there were deals with the insurance companies, and unions and pharmaceutical companies and AARP and the Amish and... But he just couldn't find the time to listen to us? Busy, busy, busy!

I get it, he was talking about the pushback on the tea party people. Those "vocal minority." Those Nazis and racists and anti-poor people. Now I understand. Who wants to talk to them? They only represent the majority of the American people. Yes, that's who he pushed back on. That evil special interests of you, the American people. You were finally pushed aside. God I hate that special interest. Always whining about something. To many taxes, to much government interference in our lives, government overstepping its constitutional authority. you know pesky stuff like that!

Whiners! Don't they know it's patriotic to pay taxes and government know what's best for you better than you do? Don't they know government is ALWAYS the answer to EVERY problem? See, if we could just kick you in the ribs it would be good for you, wouldn't it? I can't wait for those people like us to just be kicked in the ribs over and over and over again. Or the face. You know, whatever.

This is the best part of his speech...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We didn't give in to mistrust or to cynicism Or to fear.

Cynicism Or fear? Where was the press when SEIU thugs beat up a black tea partygoer while calling him the N word? Where was the press on that one? But we didn't give in to fear. The good news is we didn't, either. They didn't give in to cynicism. Cynicism, what would cause cynicism? People saying one thing and doing another? The lack of lack of transparency, would that cause cynicism?

No, couldn't be that! After all this is the most ethical and transparent congress in history. Aunt Nancy said so, so it must be true! Our government wouldn't lie to us, right?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Instead we proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things, in tackling our biggest challenges.

Wait, hold on just a second. Was healthcare our biggest challenge? Was it? I thought jobs were. But Nancy Pelosi came out today and said that she thinks this is going to create all kinds of new entrepreneurial ideas. The healthcare bill is going to create jobs? Wow why didn't they say so before, I would have been all for it!

But I think she's kind of right. Entrepreneurial ideas like, how do I get my company and my money out of the country before it's all confiscated. I think that's there's some entrepreneurs working on that right now. How can I set up shop in another country because Charlie Rangel, what a surprise, blocked the door and said you can't leave with your money anymore. Hmmm. What an odd coincidence that was.

I only have one question for comrade Obama, if this bill is so "good for us," why not implement it now, taxes and all?

And, by the way, while they are out rounding up those unicorns, why don't we demand that unemployment be 8% starting next week? What if Barrack Obama had said and he signed the stimulus bill, "Now, we're not going to have any new jobs 'til 2014?" How many of you expected a job to happen within the next month or two after he signed the stimulus bill? Three or four more million of you lost your jobs. We're up at 10% unemployment, 20% underemployment, no end in sight, why don't we just demand 8%?

Tell them we want the $2,500 checks that constitute the reduction in insurance premiums. Why wait till 2014? Send 'em out tomorrow. Obama said insurance premiums are going to drop by 2,500 bucks. He also said that senior citizens are going to get $250 bucks to close the "doughnut hole" to pay for prescriptions they can't afford now. Why wait? Send the checks out! What are we waiting for? There's no time to waste! We're talking life and death here. We got to spare people from dying because of the evil insurance companies.

Well, now we've got health care "reform," and until 2014, 127 people will continue to die a day (obama's own words) because they don't have health insurance. You want to run the numbers on 127 people dying every day between now and 2014? It's 180,000 basically, give or take between now and 2014. One-hundred eighty thousand Americans will die because they don't have health insurance between now and 2014.

In the meantime, we thought this was fixed. So right now, today, we demand -- and, yes, Republicans, I'm giving you some talking points here -- that all 32 million uninsured be covered by the start of next week. Get the process going. Tell the 32 million where to go and what they have to do to get their insurance that they are unfairly being denied today. It's going to lower the deficit. Why wait 'til 2014 to lower the deficit? Why wait 'til 2019 to lower deficit? Let's lower the deficit starting next week. If this bill has all of this magic, if this bill is "Christmas," why wait until December? Let's have Christmas in March or Christmas in April.

They're waiting for it in Raleigh. Listen to guy, DeCarlo Flythe, he's waiting for it. Wait 'til somebody tells him this doesn't happen 'til 2014:

FLYTHE: It's just going to be like Christmas, I mean it's going to be great. No worries, you know, the bills, we can go ahead and pay our co-pay and be all right.

He's not going to be all right when he finds out that none of this Christmas stuff happens 'til 2014, and he doesn't have insurance now. He may be one of the 127 a day that die between now and 2014, Obama's own numbers, 'cause they don't have health insurance. We want the union health care benefits taxed now. All these Cadillac insurance plans, we want them now! We don't want to wait 'til 2018 for the tax to kick in on Cadillac insurance plans. How are we going to reduce the deficit? Why wait 'til 2018? For crying out loud, we don't know who's going to be president then. 2018, that's like eight years from now. We want the Cadillac tax on union health plans now. The "carve-out" is 2018. It did make it in but there's a carve-out. Remember, it's part of the Cornhusker Kickback. Whether it's in reconciliation or the Senate bill, he didn't eliminate it, it's in there.

Here's the rub, here's the slick move by the democrats. The benefits don't all kick in at once in 2014, just as the taxes don't all kick in until after the midterm elections. So all we have to do from now to November is ask the Reagan question: Are you better off today than you were 48 hours ago? Are you better off today than you were yesterday?

So call your senators and representatives and ask them, why do I have to wait for any of this? All of the things that are going to happen on the deficit reduction side, why wait 'til 2014? Now! Thirty-two million uninsured? Save their lives! Why not just do it now, Mr. President? After all, life is just a co-pay, according to DeCarlo Flythe. That's the only pain he's going to have once Santa shows up. That's like having to fill your own stocking after going through what's under the tree. You'd gladly fill your own stocking. Pay your co-pay. Life's just a co-pay! Folks, you know what I'm sensing here today? We got this TIME Magazine piece; we got this Politico piece. I'm warning you: They're going to be doing everything they can from the White House to Congress to the media to dispirit you, to tell you it can't happen. "We ought to drop this whole thing! Opposition to health care is going to kill us." Take a look at the polling data: People who support health care are dying, Pelosi is at 11%, Harry Reid is at 8%, Obama's at 46 to 44% -- and they're trying to tell us we hold the losing hand here? Bunch of locoweed idiots. Demand it all now. If it's so wonderful, it's so good, it has so many great things for America? Why wait? Why? Who knows what's going to happen between now and 2014. I mean, just do deem-and-pass and get it done. It's real simple.

We can't let them dupe people again. We need to keep talking about what's coming in the bill now that it is law. We need to be talking about what's going to happen next year, what was going to happen in 2012 and 2013; how it's so bad that Obama pushed off a lot of the worst of the bill until after the next presidential race because he knows it stinks. That is why in the meantime, we ought to start demanding all of the benefits. We want the premium reductions NOW! We want access to free services NOW. Tell them we want the deficit reduction starting NOW! We want all the promises today, not in 2014; we don't want the promises in 2019. We want it NOW! We want all of the goodies in this bill to happen immediately. Because after all, most of the people that supported it think the stuff happens immediately. If Obama is to be true to his word, if Obama's to be true to his supporters who voted in support of this thing, we want it all NOW: Deficit reduction, free services, and the reduction in premiums. We want all these kids that are gonna get to stay on their parents' policies until 27. We want that NOW. We want the preexisting condition insurance changed so that it happened right now. We want 32 million people without health care to have it this week. We don't want to wait until 2015 for these poor, unfortunate people. Give them this NOW!

So keep hammering these people. We know what's coming, it's right in front of our face. We don't have the luxury to sit by and wait any more.

VOTE TALLY - 212 NO TO 219 YES
216 NEEDED TO PASS!

BIG GOVERNMENT WINS, AMERICA LOOSES!

VIEW BILL HERE

Welcome the the U.S.S.A.

How did your rep vote? See below...

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 219 Democrats and 0 Republicans.

Voting no were 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans.

There are 4 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats -- Bright, N; Davis, N.

Republicans -- Aderholt, N; Bachus, N; Bonner, N; Griffith, N; Rogers, N.

ALASKA

Republicans -- Young, N.

ARIZONA

Democrats -- Giffords, Y; Grijalva, Y; Kirkpatrick, Y; Mitchell, Y; Pastor, Y.

Republicans -- Flake, N; Franks, N; Shadegg, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats -- Berry, N; Ross, N; Snyder, Y.

Republicans -- Boozman, N.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats -- Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Chu, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Garamendi, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lee, Y; Lofgren, Zoe, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, Y; Watson, Y; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, Y.

Republicans -- Bilbray, N; Bono Mack, N; Calvert, N; Campbell, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, Daniel E., N; McCarthy, N; McClintock, N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.

COLORADO

Democrats -- DeGette, Y; Markey, Y; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y; Salazar, Y.

Republicans -- Coffman, N; Lamborn, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats -- Courtney, Y; DeLauro, Y; Himes, Y; Larson, Y; Murphy, Y.

DELAWARE

Republicans -- Castle, N.

FLORIDA

Democrats -- Boyd, Y; Brown, Corrine, Y; Castor, Y; Grayson, Y; Hastings, Y; Klein, Y; Kosmas, Y; Meek, Y; Wasserman Schultz, Y.

Republicans -- Bilirakis, N; Brown-Waite, Ginny, N; Buchanan, N; Crenshaw, N; Diaz-Balart, L., N; Diaz-Balart, M., N; Mack, N; Mica, N; Miller, N; Posey, N; Putnam, N; Rooney, N; Ros-Lehtinen, N; Stearns, N; Young, N.

GEORGIA

Democrats -- Barrow, N; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, Y; Marshall, N; Scott, Y.

Republicans -- Broun, N; Deal, N; Gingrey, N; Kingston, N; Linder, N; Price, N; Westmoreland, N.

HAWAII

Democrats -- Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Democrats -- Minnick, N.

Republicans -- Simpson, N.

ILLINOIS

Democrats -- Bean, Y; Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Foster, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Halvorson, Y; Hare, Y; Jackson, Y; Lipinski, N; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, Y.

Republicans -- Biggert, N; Johnson, N; Kirk, N; Manzullo, N; Roskam, N; Schock, N; Shimkus, N.

INDIANA

Democrats -- Carson, Y; Donnelly, Y; Ellsworth, Y; Hill, Y; Visclosky, Y.

Republicans -- Burton, N; Buyer, N; Pence, N; Souder, N.

IOWA

Democrats -- Boswell, Y; Braley, Y; Loebsack, Y.

Republicans -- King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS

Democrats -- Moore, Y.

Republicans -- Jenkins, N; Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats -- Chandler, N; Yarmuth, Y.

Republicans -- Davis, N; Guthrie, N; Rogers, N; Whitfield, N.

LOUISIANA

Democrats -- Melancon, N.

Republicans -- Alexander, N; Boustany, N; Cao, N; Cassidy, N; Fleming, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats -- Michaud, Y; Pingree, Y.

MARYLAND

Democrats -- Cummings, Y; Edwards, Y; Hoyer, Y; Kratovil, N; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, Y; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans -- Bartlett, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats -- Capuano, Y; Delahunt, Y; Frank, Y; Lynch, N; Markey, Y; McGovern, Y; Neal, Y; Olver, Y; Tierney, Y; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats -- Conyers, Y; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Kilpatrick, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, Y; Schauer, Y; Stupak, Y.

Republicans -- Camp, N; Ehlers, N; Hoekstra, N; McCotter, N; Miller, N; Rogers, N; Upton, N.

MINNESOTA

Democrats -- Ellison, Y; McCollum, Y; Oberstar, Y; Peterson, N; Walz, Y.

epublicans -- Bachmann, N; Kline, N; Paulsen, N.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats -- Childers, N; Taylor, N; Thompson, Y.

Republicans -- Harper, N.

MISSOURI

Democrats -- Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, Y; Skelton, N.

Republicans -- Akin, N; Blunt, N; Emerson, N; Graves, N; Luetkemeyer, N.

MONTANA

Republicans -- Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans -- Fortenberry, N; Smith, N; Terry, N.

NEVADA

Democrats -- Berkley, Y; Titus, Y.

Republicans -- Heller, N.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Democrats -- Hodes, Y; Shea-Porter, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats -- Adler, N; Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y; Pascrell, Y; Payne, Y; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans -- Frelinghuysen, N; Garrett, N; Lance, N; LoBiondo, N; Smith, N.

NEW MEXICO

Democrats -- Heinrich, Y; Lujan, Y; Teague, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats -- Ackerman, Y; Arcuri, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, Y; Crowley, Y; Engel, Y; Hall, Y; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maffei, Y; Maloney, Y; McCarthy, Y; McMahon, N; Meeks, Y; Murphy, Y; Nadler, Y; Owens, Y; Rangel, Y; Serrano, Y; Slaughter, Y; Tonko, Y; Towns, Y; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, Y.

Republicans -- King, N; Lee, N.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats -- Butterfield, Y; Etheridge, Y; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, Y; Price, Y; Shuler, N; Watt, Y.

Republicans -- Coble, N; Foxx, N; Jones, N; McHenry, N; Myrick, N.

NORTH DAKOTA

Democrats -- Pomeroy, Y.

OHIO

Democrats -- Boccieri, Y; Driehaus, Y; Fudge, Y; Kaptur, Y; Kilroy, Y; Kucinich, Y; Ryan, Y; Space, N; Sutton, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans -- Austria, N; Boehner, N; Jordan, N; LaTourette, N; Latta, N; Schmidt, N; Tiberi, N; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats -- Boren, N.

Republicans -- Cole, N; Fallin, N; Lucas, N; Sullivan, N.

OREGON

Democrats -- Blumenauer, Y; DeFazio, Y; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans -- Walden, N.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats -- Altmire, N; Brady, Y; Carney, Y; Dahlkemper, Y; Doyle, Y; Fattah, Y; Holden, N; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Patrick, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.

Republicans -- Dent, N; Gerlach, N; Murphy, Tim, N; Pitts, N; Platts, N; Shuster, N; Thompson, N.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats -- Kennedy, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats -- Clyburn, Y; Spratt, Y.

Republicans -- Barrett, N; Brown, N; Inglis, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Democrats -- Herseth Sandlin, N.

TENNESSEE

Democrats -- Cohen, Y; Cooper, Y; Davis, N; Gordon, Y; Tanner, N.

Republicans -- Blackburn, N; Duncan, N; Roe, N; Wamp, N.

TEXAS

Democrats -- Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Edwards, N; Gonzalez, Y; Green, Al, Y; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Ortiz, Y; Reyes, Y; Rodriguez, Y.

Republicans -- Barton, N; Brady, N; Burgess, N; Carter, N; Conaway, N; Culberson, N; Gohmert, N; Granger, N; Hall, N; Hensarling, N; Johnson, Sam, N; Marchant, N; McCaul, N; Neugebauer, N; Olson, N; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, N; Smith, N; Thornberry, N.

UTAH

Democrats -- Matheson, N.

Republicans -- Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats -- Welch, Y.

VIRGINIA

Democrats -- Boucher, N; Connolly, Y; Moran, Y; Nye, N; Perriello, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans -- Cantor, N; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, N; Wittman, N; Wolf, N.

WASHINGTON

Democrats -- Baird, Y; Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, Y; Smith, Y.

Republicans -- Hastings, N; McMorris Rodgers, N; Reichert, N.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats -- Mollohan, Y; Rahall, Y.

Republicans -- Capito, N.

WISCONSIN

Democrats -- Baldwin, Y; Kagen, Y; Kind, Y; Moore, Y; Obey, Y.

Republicans -- Petri, N; Ryan, N; Sensenbrenner, N.

WYOMING

Republicans -- Lummis, N.

The American dream as I have known it, is dead!

Our future is being decided right now, and it is being decided by special interests, by rulers and kings. They just don't wear a crown anymore. Lords and ladies, dukes and earls. We have entered a European period in America. And America will never truly be successful anymore. We have entered an age where the individual cannot make a difference. Where a man can no longer make his own way.

In the book 'Democracy in America', written in the 1800's a European is trying to figure America out, what is this American experience, how does this work, we've never seen anything like it before in the history of the world. The first half of the book talks about the glories and the wonders. The second half of the book talks about how there will come a time where the rich and the powerful will try to kick the door closed because they don't want to share (they don't want to be challenged) anymore, they made it, kick the door closed. Remember Obama saying that basically he made it "against the odds" but you can't? That "someone" stacked the deck against you, that you will never make it without their (read socialists) help.

The real question is: Has that door really been kicked closed? and if it has, what do we do then? I believe in the power of the individual. I have a firm belief in the idea of America. Because that's what America is, an idea, an idea that every man can make his own way, that not every man will not be crushed, that every man has a right to fail and will fail from time to time. Your life will be more failure than success. Mine has been. Your life will be more stress than happiness. It's like having children, they will be your greatest heartache, until the day you drop dead. But they will also be your greatest joy. They will be the only reason you go on living at some point in your life. Because if you truly get it, if you truly understand what it's all about, you will realize they are the only things that really mean anything. So, you will have to decide: Is it worth it? The answer is "yes."

So is America or the American experience any different than having children? America is the idea that all men are created equal, that we don't have kings and lords, that there is no system that wants to crush us, that every man can go as high as his ambition and skill can take him. Will there be failures? Yes! Will there be days when you fall flat on your face? Sure, probably more days than not. But America is a place where a man can fail and get back up and try again tomorrow. Or as Thomas Edison said, "I haven't failed, I've found 10,000 ways that don't work."

So the question remains, is it worth it? Is The American dream worth fighting for? Is it worth giving the last full measure? The answer is "yes." It is why people raised the flag on Iwo Jima, standing practically on bodies, why they stormed the beaches of Normandy, thousands dead, mowed down the moment they jumped off the boat. Why? For a piece of ground that we would never keep? A piece of ground that meant nothing? No. They did it for the American idea. For freedom.

Today we're tearing ourselves apart and there are those that are tearing us apart intentionally. There are people now that are telling us, on both sides, the extreme right and the extreme left, It's my way. You do it my way. You don't listen to this person or listen to that person. Don't be taken by these siren songs, don’t just listen to those who you agree with, listen to everyone, understand what they want for America. I am asking you, no, I am begging you, read everything, listen to everyone, read the books that the far left and the far right are telling you not to read. Be engaged, be informed. Understand where each side wants to take America. There are some books out there, like books on communism that are the most evil books I have ever read. Now, there are those who asked me, why would you tell people to read these books if you say that it's the most evil book ever written? Because I'm not one who bans books! That's what Nazis do. That's what communists do. They tell you not to search, not to seek, not to listen, not to read. I tell you, turn over every stone, read everything you can, ask yourself. Don't ask the bold questions of others before you've asked the bold questions of yourself first. All I ask, no, I implore you, know what you believe, know what is true. As Glenn Beck says, question with boldness even the very existence of God, for if there be a God, he must surely rather have you ask honest questions over blindfolded fear.

Why? Because you will not stand if you don't know what you truly believe. When trouble comes, you will not stand if you have a simpleton's version of the United States, the flag and our heritage. Don't be one who just goes to all of the fourth of July celebrations, to the parades but has no understanding of what they mean. That's not what we are! That's not who we are. Who are we you my ask? We are keepers of the dream. We are protectors of the flame of liberty. We are guardians of freedom. This task had been handed to us from our forefathers, and their forefathers since that warm July day in 1776.

In America, you have the freedom to express yourself as you see fit! (As long as you're not telling people to kill people) You have a profound honor and responsibility, because more and more people are wondering today, does the American dream even exist? And as you see more and more of this structure coming your way, more and more people will ask, can a man stand on his own, can a man come from nowhere and make it to the top? And the answer is "yes"! As long as you understand that the American dream is, or isn't.

This has nothing to do with a TV set or a house, or any material things. It has everything to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights that can only come from one place, an ever loving God that loves you so much that he will allow you to experience pain and discomfort so you can understand the sweet, sweet blessings of life.

Manipulation, Payoffs and Lies -- The Democrats' Endgame On Health Care

By Andrea Tantaros - FOXNews.com

This week will reveal the harsh reality of corruption in the Democratic leadership. All of the Democrat’s lip service on “change you can believe in” (Obama) and “cleaning up the swamp” (Pelosi) will be exposed as hollow and untrue.

Democrats have convinced themselves that it would be far worse to do nothing on health care than listen to the concerns of the public. And they have demonstrated they will stop at nothing to get some form of legislation passed – even using the House Rules Committee to draft a new rule that would make it possible for Speaker Pelosi to pass the bill without an actual vote!

This jaw-dropping abuse of power has appropriately been labeled the “Slaughter Strategy” after Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) the tactic’s chief architect and a close Pelosi ally. It would give members of the Democratic Caucus cover. Why, you ask? Because it would skip the step that would force our lawmakers to place an “aye” vote next to a radioactive, unpopular piece of legislation that they will have to defend until Election Day in the fall.

This type of manipulation of government process might be the most perverse we’ve seen to date.

Why are they doing this, you might ask? Pelosi needs to employ any game plan she can to get her way since she’s poised to lose about a dozen members over the issue of federal funding of abortion. Though Bart Stupak, and others, will hold firm, there are members of Congress who will cave in to the Speaker’s wishes from pressure. Think of it this way: the vote on health care reform will be the defining moment that showcases who the true pro-life Democrats really are.

The White House will also help Speaker Pelosi any way it can to drag the bloody body that is the health care bill over the finish line. The Associated Press reported on Friday that though Obama has railed against the "ugly process" of cutting special deals, the president and his top advisers were prime time players in negotiations on the agreements to win votes and move the legislation forward.

So what exactly will they promise the members to get their way?

Answer: A lot. And a lot of those promises will include various ways to spend your money.

As of now, the votes for passage aren’t there. No less an expert than the House Democratic Whip revealed that the party is short of the votes on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” This is despite Pelosi’s intentional deception to portray the picture as otherwise last Wednesday when she insisted she would have the 216 needed for victory if the bill was brought to the floor. But that was a lie; if she had the support necessary we would be watching a vote on C-SPAN. You’ve gotta believe that the second she hits the magic number, a vote will immediately be called.

This week will reveal the harsh reality of corruption in the Democratic leadership. All of the Democrat’s lip service on “change you can believe in” (Obama) and “cleaning up the swamp” (Pelosi) will be exposed as hollow and untrue. No matter the cost – financial or political – the left is prepared to do whatever it takes to score a win. But that’s the thing about cost, eventually you have to pay. And pay they will.

Sadly, so will we.

Home of the Obama Watch Blog

Main Menu

Internal links

Articles

Resources

For the Kids...

Links to our Friends