"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

- Martin Niemöller

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

Mistrust of census process by some people is misplaced, officials say

By STEVE CAMPBELL, Star-Telegram

The anti-government sentiment that sparked the Tea Party movement is brewing a backlash of sorts against the upcoming census by people who say it asks too many questions and intrudes on their privacy.

Such census resisters say the Constitution only empowers the Census Bureau to count the number of people in a household. They say that's the only inquiry they'll respond to when the 10-question census forms are mailed to 130 million households in mid-March.

Gabriel Sanchez, the Dallas-based regional census director, says the claim is wrong.

"The truth is, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they gave Congress the power to determine how the census is conducted. The U.S. Supreme Court has again and again upheld how the Census Bureau conducts the census," Sanchez said.

The 2010 form is the shortest in modern history, he said, and asks only simple questions such as age, gender, ethnicity and whether a dwelling is owned or rented.

But a household head count is all the census will get from Robyn Leann Burwell, 30, of Hawley.

"My position, at this point, is that the only constitutional part of it is for them to do a head count," she said. "The bottom line is, I feel like the government has been trying to find ways to get information they don't necessarily need."

Burwell, an English professor at Abilene Christian University and a Libertarian candidate for state House District 85, and her husband, John, a Libertarian candidate for U.S. House District 13 in West Texas, helped start an Abilene chapter of the 912 Project, a grassroots conservative organization.

"I think it's just really important to look at it as more than a random questionnaire. We should be asking if they really need to ask the questions," Burwell said.

Renee Higgins, a 51-year-old housewife from Merkel and a member of the Abilene 912 Project, agrees with that stance.

"I think the only thing we need to answer is our name and how many people. Beyond that, it's none of their business," said Higgins, who says she has grown increasingly leery of all government entities.

"The overreaching things going on with our government lead people to question things. I question everything they do," Higgins said. "I'm not some nut job. I'm a realist, and I've looked into a lot of things and I question a lot of things."

Higgins says that she filled out the 2000 Census forms but that "I was stupid then, I thought you had to do it. But when they start invading your privacy, you have to draw the line. I was ignorant, but I've learned."

State Demographer Karl Eschbach says that such "independent streaks" have come and gone over the years but that the current fears seem misplaced.

"It's kind of a peculiar concern in an age in which so much is being collected about us by folks other than the government. These are fairly benign questions," said Eschbach, a professor and health researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, noting that the first census, in 1790, asked six questions.

"Clearly, everyone's ability to monitor us has gone way up," he said. "Private industry can track the keystrokes on your computer. You've got people making databanks of your every consumer purchase, and you are worried about the government knowing how you classify yourself by race and ethnicity for purposes of allocation of funds?"

Tool for planners

Many of the concerns appear linked to the American Community Survey, a much more extensive census questionnaire sent to 75,000 households nationwide each month.

The ongoing survey, Sanchez said, is an important tool for local planners, who need to know detailed information like how many toilets are in a home to determine the need for sewage facilities. Questions on commute times help communities identify transportation needs, he said.

Although many census holdouts say they resent the intrusiveness and growth of government, if they don't fill out the forms they'll be visited by a census worker. That will increase the cost of the census, Sanchez said. The Census Bureau projects a 70 percent return rate on the forms, but every 1 percent of noncompliance adds $85 million to the cost, he said.

For both the 10-question form and the community survey, census workers will visit nonresponsive households up to seven times, Sanchez said. And if that doesn't work, the enumerators will contact neighbors for the data.

That is what happened to Breena Fay Rhodes when she didn't respond to "intrusive questions" on the community survey. The 40-year-old McLennan County woman, who home-schools four children, said census workers "harassed" her for months trying to get the information. She would reveal only the number of people in her household.

"I prayed over my decision and did not make that decision lightly," Rhodes wrote in an e-mail. "But I love my country. We Americans have to take a stand for liberty, we have to stand up for what is right. It is wrong for my government to harass and threaten me on my own property in order to get my private information."

Basis for democracy

But the census is a pivotal underpinning of American democracy, says Steve Murdock, a Rice University sociology professor who was the census director for the last year of George W. Bush's presidency.

The agency is only doing what it is constitutionally mandated to do: collecting data necessary for the government to function efficiently and to determine the apportionment of U.S. House seats -- "the ultimate basis for our representative democracy," he said.

"There have always been elements of the census that are a concern to the population," Murdock said. In general, he said, during good economic times, when people have a positive perception of what is happening, "you get a better census count."

"Many argue that the success of the 2000 Census was that economic times were relatively good. There was very much a positive, optimistic view of what was happening in the country, and the census was a beneficiary of that," Murdock said.

Things change tremendously in 10 years, Sanchez said, and the census must adapt.

"This is the first post-9-11 census and this is the first census where there are a lot of questions about confidential information and identity theft," he said. "Ten years ago, nobody had heard of identity theft. We have to be as flexible as possible. This is not an evil government conspiracy."

Adrian J. Murray of the Fort Worth 912 Project said the concerns are overblown.

"I really think there is some hysteria going on here. People need to calm down. We look on government with a healthy skepticism, but this is going too far," he said. "It might be invasive, but it's innocuous. Skepticism is one thing, but paranoia is another."

Here are the questions:

How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment or mobile home on April 1, 2010?

Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010, that you did not include in Question 1?

(Paraphrased) Is this house, apartment or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?

What is your telephone number?

Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a person here who owns or rents this house, apartment or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. What is Person 1's name?

What is Person 1's sex?

What is Person 1's age and what is Person 1's date of birth?

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

What is Person 1's race?

Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?

Source: Census Bureau

HARRY REID: "ONLY" 36,000 JOBS LOST, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD!

OBAMA: 3.4% PROFIT IS "OBSCENE"

Seems like every other day the President has someone else to blame, some villain or evil entity that's ruining American lives and thus causing the government to run our healthcare industry. This time it's those evil health insurance companies, you know them, those evil greedy profiteers. But, are they really reaping windfall profits like Obama says?

President Obama: "There have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now," Obama said during a prime-time news conference. At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits, and premiums are going up. What's the constraint on that? ... Well, part of the way is to make sure that there's some competition out there."

PROFITS

As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows, the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (includes Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).

Fortune magazine's list of the 53 most profitable industries placed health insurance and managed care at No. 35, based on 2008 profits that were 2.2 percent of revenue. That compared with, for example, 19.3 cents profit on each dollar of revenue for pharmaceutical companies and an 8.7 percent profit margin for gas and electric utilities, according to Fortune's list.

And a different breakdown by Yahoo! Finance ranked the 3.4 percent profit margin for health care plans as 88th among 215 industries.

But the Fed made an "obscene" profit of $45 billion last year. Where's that money going? No one even reported on it in the MSM. Isn't that OUR money? Baybe it's that Obama money I keep hearing about!

As private health insurance companies come under attack for making profits, even "record profits," allegedly because of mergers, lack of competition, and monopoly power. A new report shows that the industry is lagging way behind other industries including Tobacco, Beverage and utility companies. So why are the Democrats going after the Insurance companies? Simple, they need someone to demonize in order to ram through their healthcare takeover.

Health Care for America Now:
Simply put, the private insurance companies have secured monopolies or tight oligopolies and exercised that power to put profits ahead of patients.

There were no actions taken against anticompetitive conduct by health insurers in the last administration, in spite of the fact that cases by state attorneys general have secured massive fines against these insurers. A lack of antitrust enforcement has enabled insurers to acquire dominant positions in almost every metropolitan market. Unfortunately, this toxic market structure has a profound effect on the nation’s ability to achieve the goals of health care reform.

The above argument is a straw man argument, because one reason for a lack of competition is that competition for health insurance across state lines is prohibited, creating in effect 50 state health insurance "cartels"

The cross-state competition has been one of the cornerstones of the republican arguments but has been rebuked time and time again by this administration. I’m fact every amendment proposed by Republicans has been rejected including tort reform, mainly due to the fact that the lawyer lobby is against it.

There is also another down side to the Democrats healthcare "overhaul," jobs!

The Louisville-based Humana cited a possible national health care overhaul as a reason it will cut its work force by 1,400 jobs this year.

But health care experts outside the insurance industry said those profits are not a major factor behind America's rising health spending, which reached a record $2.5trillion last year — 17 percent of the economy.

The five companies' profits amount to less than half a percent of the total spending, “less than a rounding error,” said Alwyn Cassil, public affairs director for the Center for Studying Health System Change.

“I am no apologist for the insurance industry, believe me,” she said. “But this idea that (taking) this $12billion that they have in profits … would fix our health-care spending problems is just a pipe dream.”

Insurers said the main factors pushing up health care costs and premiums are increased spending on hospitals, doctor services and prescription drugs, and expensive technology.

A report last week by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the use of high-tech diagnostic imaging, per patient, tripled between 1996 and 2007.

And Zirkelbach, of America's Health Insurance Plans, cited a report this month from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on factors behind the growth of U.S. health care spending.

It estimated that spending grew 5.9 percent last year for hospitals, 6.3 percent for physician and clinical services and 5.2 percent for prescription drugs. Private health insurance premiums, by contrast, grew 3.3 percent, CMS said.

The increased spending is due to increased fears of lawsuits so doctors are ordering more tests and expensive referrals to avoid being blamed if something is missed.

Speaking of lawyers, I wonder what profit margins they had during the same period? Funny how that is never investigated.

While about 15 percent to 20 percent of insurers' premium revenue typically goes toward administrative costs rather than medical care, Zirkelbach said profits make up a small portion of those costs.

But such arguments aren't convincing to consumers paying higher and higher premiums while reading reports of corporate profits and insurance CEOs' pay.

“I'm a capitalist like anyone else,” said Rick Frazier, who lives in Sellersburg, Ind., and runs a hair salon in Louisville. “But if you're an (insurance executive) making $10million a year, you shouldn't say, ‘Let's raise Rick's premiums a little more.'”

His wife, Judy Frazier, said the couple pay $784 a month for an Anthem plan.

Rick Frazier said despite those premiums, he “constantly has to battle” with Anthem over medical bills. He said the insurer wouldn't pay for a $16,000 procedure for his back problem because it is considered experimental.

Insurers said the report by Health Care for America Now! unfairly overlooks the fact that some of the five companies' profits came from non-health care businesses they own.

Most notably, the report said Philadelphia-based Cigna's profit grew 346 percent — but its health-insurance profits rose only 2 percent, earnings reports show.

Cigna spokesman Chris Curran, echoing similar comments from other insurers, said the company is committing to serious discussions toward health care reform — “but that discussion needs to be based on fact,” he said. “Reports such as this one (do) nothing to further the goal … of access to quality affordable health care for all Americans.”

Cheryl Randolph, spokeswoman for Minneapolis-based UnitedHealth, also said it's misleading to cite company wide profits for the diversified health-care company. Overall profits rose 28 percent to $3.8billion, but earnings from the company's core health-benefits business fell 6 percent, according to company earnings reports.

And WellPoint said the report ignores the fact that half of its $4.7billion profit last year was from the sale of a pharmacy business, not from insurance proceeds.

But Kirsch of Health Care for America Now! said looking at company wide profits was a legitimate approach. “Each company can have a different story … but the overall picture of the industry is pretty clear,” he said.

A look back to 2007 reveals some insurers have realized sizable profit gains despite their 2008 setbacks. For example, Humana has recorded a 25 percent gain since 2007, to just over $1billion last year, according to company earnings reports.

However, that profit growth was in line with the increase in Humana's overall business, as its revenues grew 22 percent in the two-year period, according to company reports. Spokesman Tom Noland said Humana's profit margin last year was 3.4 cents on the dollar.

On the other hand, profits at Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna have declined each of the past two years, falling from $1.8billion to under $1.3billion.

The Obama administration cited WellPoint's 2009 profits in objecting to Anthem's premium increases of up to 39 percent for some Californians who have individual plans rather than group plans bought through an employer.

“It remains difficult to understand how a company that made $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone can justify massive increases that will leave consumers with nothing but bad options,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleeen Sebelius wrote to Anthem's president. She demanded that the company justify the increases.

Anthem agreed to postpone the increases for two months, to May 1, to give state regulators time to review the increases.

The company blamed rising medical costs and the recession for the large premium hikes. It said the weak economy led healthier consumers to go without insurance — leaving a smaller pool of sicker people in its individual plans.

Californians aren't alone in facing large increases for individual health coverage.

Let's take a moment to understand California's predicament shall we?

A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that in 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. Total uncompensated educational, health care and incarceration costs were estimated to be 10.5 billion.

An insurance watchdog group says the number could be as much as triple this due to the fact that most hospitals do not ask the immigration status of it's patients.

Care is frequently provided to illegal immigrants by emergency rooms and is provided when a crisis exists rather than as preventive practice. Both phenomena add to the high cost of health care.

Many California hospitals cannot afford to absorb costs and many are forced to close due to financial mandates for treating illegal immigrants. As recently reported, 84 California hospitals are closing their doors forever. Hospital closure degrades health care to all in the community and results in job losses.

A primary reason why health care costs are soaring in California and else ware is that most of the time when people enter the medical marketplace, they are spending someone else's money. When patients pay their own medical bills, they are conservative consumers. Economic studies and common sense confirm that people are less likely to be prudent, careful shoppers if someone else is picking up the tab. Thus, the increase in spending has occurred because third parties - employers, insurance companies or government - pay almost all the bills.

Federal laws provide states incentives to provide Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants. All state Medicaid programs offer an endless list of services, with some states, such as Florida, literally including the kitchen sink if home repairs and maintenance are needed. Only four states check for citizenship before awarding Medicaid. California escalated – in one year – from 450,000 illegal aliens on Medi-Cal (California's version of Medicaid) in 2002 to 750,000 in 2003.

The bottom line is illegals consume more services than the state gains in tax revenue. The estimate is that illegals pay approximately 10% of the costs while the taxpayer is left picking up the tab for the rest.

So my conclusion is that with the increased costs of dong business because of additional test and the cost of the technology to conduct those tests along with un-recouped costs for treating illegal aliens the profit margins of these insurance companies seem a little less "obscene!"

Oba-Kabuki: A Box-Office Bomb

by Michelle Malkin

The Oba-Kabuki health care show at Blair House kicked off with a big lie on Thursday morning -- and it all went downhill from there. The taxpayer-funded infomercial backfired by exposing the president's thin skin, the Democrats' naked disingenuousness and the ruling majority's allergies to political and policy realities.

Responding to Sen. Lamar Alexander's opening call for Democrats to renounce parliamentary tactics designed to limit debate, circumvent filibusters and lower the threshold for passage of health care reform to a simple 51-vote majority, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sputtered indignantly: "No one's talking about reconciliation!" Everybody and their mother has been invoking the "R" word on Capitol Hill, starting with Reid.

In a letter on Feb. 16, four Democratic senators pushed Reid to adopt the procedure, normally reserved for budget matters. A few days later, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs discussed the option. Then Reid himself talked up reconciliation on a Nevada public affairs show as an option to ram the government health care takeover through in the next 60 days.

According to The Hill, Reid said that "congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its health care bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster." A few days after that, Reid snapped that Republicans "should stop crying" about the abrogation of Senate minority rights, since the GOP had used the reconciliation process in the past.

So, the cleanest, most ethical holier-than-thou Congress ever is now defending the unprecedented adoption of ram-down rules for a radical, multitrillion-dollar program to usurp one-seventh of the economy on the grounds of "two wrongs make it right"? Hope and change, baby.

For his part, President Obama responded with one part pique and two parts diffidence. After the summit lunch break, Republicans pushed the reconciliation issue again in the face of the Democrats' refusal to disavow the short-circuiting of the deliberative process. "The American people," an annoyed Obama asserted, "are not all that interested in procedures inside the Senate." Oh, really? A new USA Today/Gallup poll reports that 52 percent of Americans oppose using the procedural maneuver to pass the health care bill in the Senate.

The survey also showed that Americans oppose Demcare-style health care "reform" by 49 percent to 42 percent -- with those "strongly" opposed outnumbering those "strongly" in favor by 23 percent to 11 percent. Obama's best and brightest team of Chicago strategists, new-media gurus and communications specialists still hasn't figured it out: Voters are as fed up with the corrupt process in Washington as they are with the White House's overreaching policies. It's both, stupid.

When he wasn't cutting off Republicans who stuck to budget specifics and cited legislative page numbers and language instead of treacly, sob-story anecdotes involving dentures and gallstones, Obama was filibustering the talk-a-thon away by invoking his daughters, rambling on about auto insurance and sniping at former GOP presidential rival John McCain. "We're not campaigning anymore," lectured the perpetual campaigner-in-chief.

After ostentatiously disputing the GOP's claims that health care premiums would rise under his plan, Obama walked it back. Confronted with more GOP pushback on the failure of Demcare to control costs, Obama told GOP Rep. Paul Ryan that he'd rather not "get bogged down in numbers." Not numbers that he couldn't cook on the spot without staff consultation, anyway.

Obama and the Democrats labored mightily to create the illusion of almost-there bipartisanship by repeatedly telling disagreeing Republicans that "we don't disagree" and "there's not a lot of difference" between us. But the dogs weren't riding the ponies in this show.

This was a set-up from the start. The "we're so close" mantra is the rhetorical wedge the White House will use to blame Republicans for fatal obstructionism, while whitewashing festering opposition from both pro-life Democrats who oppose the government funding of abortion services still in the plan and left-wing progressives in the House who are clinging to a full, unadulterated public option.

While Republicans came off well, the six-hour blowhard-fest was a monumental waste of time. Obamacare Theater tied up GOP energy and resources as the White House readies its "Plan B" (expanding government health care coverage, just at a slower pace) and Democratic leaders prep their reconciliation ram-down for early next week. This Washington box-office bomb is a prelude to much bigger legislative horrors still to come. Don't you love farce?

VALERIE JARETT CHANNELS FOREST GUMP

Valerie Jarrett, the best friend of Barack and Michelle Obama, she was up at Harvard recently where she was asked a question about the tea party. Her answer is a little convoluted because the guy's asking her a question and we join it with him asking a question of the tea partiers, all right?

Basically what she's getting ready to say is, tea parties aren't so bright.

VOICE: Whereas a typical person including those in the tea party, exactly, could understand the basics of it because I feel that many of them simply don't. Do you think that is an analogy?

Maybe we need a simple pamphlet, a little book because tea party people are too stupid to understand. So you need a little book. Maybe something with pictures and stuff.

JARRETT: I think it's an excellent analogy. I think probably hope and change were so catchy because it was really very simple and it was something everyone understood the definition. That's why death panels were so catchy. Everybody didn't know what it meant but they knew it was really bad. And so I think part of our challenge is to find a very simple way of communicating. And it's hard to even understand what people are talking about. When I first got there they kept talking about cloture and reconciliation. And people don't know what that's talking about. They know what a preexisting condition is when they've been dropped from their insurance company.

Then she's go the some thoughts on tea parties.

JARRETT: Even if they are in favor of, let's say, a different form of healthcare, insurance to perform, fine. But what's happening is it's an anti government. I mean, that's the tea party. They really are trying to rebel against government at all. I think that that's

It's a lot easier to scare people and to get them angry when they are scared and they are already uncertain and I think that's what the tea party is trying to capture. There's nobody more self critical than President Obama.

Okay. Let's just digest what she just said. Tea party people are stupid and so we should have a little booklet just to explain things. That's why hope and change work so well. Well, it didn't work on the tea partygoers. Do you have to talk down to them even below the hope and change? Because the tea partygoers were saying that doesn't mean anything. What does that mean? Give us specifics!

Maybe she thinks four letters is too long of a word for tea party members.

So that's why she says hope and change work so well, but we need a little booklet because tea partygoers are stupid. Not only are they stupid, they are all anti government. I have to tell you something. I've never met so many people that are pro government as defined by our Constitution. I don't know a single tea partygoer that hates government as defined by our Constitution. We just don't think it's been defined, you know, been run like our Constitution says for over a hundred years. So yes, we're anti big government, but we're not anarchists.

So the tea partygoers are stupid and need a little booklet to understand our . But then they also hate government. Now, her main content here is that you don't need to point things out to Barack Obama. He doesn't need people to correct him and yell at him and tell him what he's doing wrong. Listen to this.

JARRETT: The burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately. The president's staff and the president have been very actively involved in working with both the House and the Senate to try to get healthcare reform delivered. But ultimately the party, the people that deliver and vote on a bill are congress. If the president could do it unilaterally, he would have done it a long time ago, I can assure you of that.

I believe that. She got that one right!

The thing I find unbelievable is when she says there's no one more self critical than President Obama. The burden of being so bright is that he sees his errors immediately.

The burden of being so bright. I have example after example of how he just hammers himself over all he does wrong. After all he Only gave himself an A-. Remember when he said this:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Up with left to go. Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to.

Or this:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs if they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment and a breathalyzer or inhalator, not a breathalyzer.

An inhalating breathalyzer. I mean, there you go. He is so bright, he catches those things. He is on it.

Here's a real good one, let me go back to the part where he think he's so bright, his problem is he thinks he's so bright that he thinks he can get away with anything. He has said in the past, when he said in the past about ACORN, he wasn't involve himself with them, he doesn't know anything about them. He did one court case with the justice department with ACORN. That's it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: My relationship to ACORN is pretty straightforward. When, it's probably 13 years ago when I was still practicing law, I represented ACORN, and my partner in that representation was the U.S. justice department.

This is on the campaign trail, he as asked, What is your relationship with ACORN? It's very straightforward.

Okay, So he was practicing law when he did a case for ACORN. That was his relationship. When he was still practicing law. This is when he was running for president. He was in the Senate. Now, here's a newly found video transcript. The president talking to ACORN behind closed doors. Listen what his involvement was when we has talking to ACORN instead of about ACORN.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And you know you've got a friend in me, and I definitely welcome ACORN's input. You don't have to ask me about that. I'm going to call you even if you didn't ask me.

When I ran Project Vote, voter registration drive in Illinois, you know, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it. Once I was elected, there wasn't a campaign that ACORN worked on down in Springfield that I wasn't right there with you. Since I've been in the United States Senate, I've been always a partner with ACORN as well. I've been fighting with ACORN, alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.

There you go. By the way, did you catch at the beginning? You don't have to call me; I will call you. I thought his relationship was pretty straightforward. I thought it was just that one case 13 years ago. A long time ago. He barely knows who they are.

This is why when Valerie Jarrett says, "He's just so smart, that's the thing.

JARRETT: Nobody more self critical than President Obama. Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.

Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees the error of his ways immediately. Part of the burden? Wow.

That's the problem. These guys think they're so bright, they think they can get away with anything, and they think that you need a little booklet to put it together! No. No, I don't think we do. We see EXACTLY what is going on!

Here she is in all her stupid glory:

Arianna Huffington: Free Speech Applies Only to Liberals

Huffington Post founder finds fault with “paranoid style” of conservative speech while ignoring inflammatory liberal accusations.

By Colleen Raezler
Culture and Media Institute

Arianna Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, recently asserted that “words matter” when arguing that Fox News’ Glenn Beck was “inciting the American people” with his “paranoid style.”

Funny, but according to liberals like Huffington, “words” only seem to “matter” when conservatives like Beck speak, and not the liberal hosts and anchors at MSNBC.

Since the first of the year, MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and anchor David Shuster have attacked conservatives as racist, sexist, and continued to refer to the tea party movement in derogatory, sexual terms. Of course, they’re just picking up where they left off in 2009. For example, Olbermann compared conservative columnist Michelle Malkin to a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it” last October, the same month Matthews suggested that, “at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his [Rush Limbaugh’s] head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp.”

Huffington continually pointed to Beck’s use of the word “slaughter” to describe what he believes progressives are doing to America as evidence that he is making “fantastical statements … at a time of real pain.”

Huffing Hypocrisy

Arianna Huffington, by the way, as the MRC documented in its 2007 study, “Huffington’s House of Horrors,” once insisted that it was acceptable for one of her bloggers to refer to Fox News as a “tumor” because it “is a legitimate view that many people hold.”

In 2006, Huffington allowed writer Jane Smiley space on her site for this characterization of patriotic Americans:

Americans, true patriotic red, white, and blue Americans like hate. They feel comfortable with it and always have. Over the years, they’ve hated the Irish, the Italians, black people, foreigners of all kinds, Catholics, Chinese workers on the railroad, Jews, Hispanics, gays, fans of the White Sox – the list is as long as your arm. And, of course, it makes any decent American uncomfortable, but “real” Americans are beyond shame – they are so ignorant and poorly brought up and fearful and pandered to by haters in the media that they don’t even hear themselves disgorging sewage from their mouths, they don’t see the ignorant, vicious looks on their faces, they don’t hear the stupidity of their own laughter.

But Arianna is now concerned about “words” and “fantastical statements?”

And while Huffington has no qualms with calling out Beck for what she sees as “dangerous” rhetoric, even going so far as to compare his statements to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, she fails to hold the anchors and hosts at MSNBC up to the same standard.

MSNBC – All Vitriol, All the Time.

Olbermann, on Jan. 18, the night before Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, labeled Brown “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

On CNN’s Feb. 7 “Reliable Sources,” Howard Kurtz asked Huffington to compare Olbermann’s rant against Brown to Beck’s rants. “You can put out there thousands of emotional, passionate statements Keith Olbermann has made based on fact,” Huffington said. “This is a fundamental distinction – passion and emotion based on fact, based on passion and emotion a la Glenn Beck based on fantasy and fabrication.”

For the record, Olbermann apologized for his outburst against Brown the very next night – apologized for omitting the word “sexist.”

“I wanted to apologize for calling Senator-elect Scott Brown an ‘irresponsible, homophobic, racist reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees,’ the host stated on Jan. 19. “I’m sorry, I left out the word ‘sexist.’”

Olbermann eventually conceded that he had “been a little over the top,” but it came only after Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart ripped into him about his remarks.

And as for Huffington’s assertion that Olbermann’s “passion and emotion” are “based on fact,” a fact check revealed that Olbermann’s caricature of Brown was based on distorted stories.

Olbermann also concluded that statements about President Obama’s perceived arrogance by conservative pundits are really racist code words.

“Here’s a little secret, gathered, sadly, from witnessing it my whole life, even from some in my own family,” Olbermann confided to his viewers on Jan. 28. “When racist white guys get together and they don’t want to be caught using any of the popular epithets in use every day in this country about black people – and there’s a chance one of them, or worse still a white guy who doesn’t get it, might wander in and hear the conversation, when there’s a risk even in saying ‘uppity’ or ‘forgetting his place,’ the racist white guys revert to euphemisms and code words.”

Olbermann’s rant was part of his “Worst Person in the World” segment. He gave The Washington Post’s Mark Thiessen, Erick Erickson of Red State, National Review’s John Hood and Jay Nordlinger, and Glenn Beck and John Stossel, collectively, the award for their criticisms of Obama’s delivery of the State of the Union.

Chris Matthews, for his part, also attempted to portray conservatives as dangerous racists. MSNBC’s “Hardball” host claimed on Jan. 5 that the tea party movement was “monochromatic” and implied that racism was the impetus behind that group. He spelled out for his guest, The Daily Beast’s Mark McKinnon, that his “monochromatic” remark referred to the fact that tea partiers are “all white. All of them, every single one of them is white.”

In an ad for a Jan. 18 MSNBC special that marked the first anniversary of President Obama’s inauguration, Matthews stated, “For the first time, we have an African American head of state. But, there’s always going to be people who challenge it, who are threatened by it.”

Matthews compared Republicans to the Khmer Rouge, the murderous communist regime, during a Jan. 29 appearance on “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

“What’s going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of a frightening, almost Cambodia re-education camp going on in that party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, if you’re not far right, you’re not right enough,” he told Maddow.

Maddow used her Feb. 5 program to deride members of the Tea Party movement as the Ku Klux Klan.

Reporting on the start of the National Tea Party convention, Maddow claimed that opening speaker Tom Tancredo “started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang” because of a reference he made to “a civics literacy test.”

“Just for reference here, when Tom Tancredo talks about literacy tests, that’s what they used in the south to keep black people from voting before civil rights legislation and court rulings put a stop to that,” explained Maddow. “So the convention opened with a clarion call to bring back the literacy tests for voting. And as you could hear, the tea party convention crowd erupted in cheers at the suggestion, although, to be fair, it was sort of hard to tell exactly what the sounds coming from the crowd meant. They were sort of a little bit muffled by, you know, the white hoods.”

Tancredo’s signature issue is illegal immigration. His statement clearly was not racist:

“Mostly because I think we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in the country, people who could not even spell the word ‘vote,’ or say it in English, put a committed, socialist ideologue in the White House. The name is Barack Hussein Obama,” stated Tancredo.

Taking a break from shouting down conservative guests that appeared on his show, MSNBC daytime anchor David Shuster appeared on the Jan. 19 Stephanie Miller radio show to claim that that the fire department should let Glenn Beck’s house burn down if it were to ever catch fire.

“Well, you know, maybe I, you know, God forbid, you know, Glenn Beck's house should ever collapse because of some disaster, or burn up because of some fire. If that's his attitude, then maybe the fire department ought to think twice about putting out the fire at his house, and he can be on his own and see if his radio listeners want to come and, and, you know, with the hoses or something,” Shuster told Miller.

Shuster’s disturbing suggestion was his response to Miller’s claim that Glenn Beck “actually said that the President is dividing the nation by reacting too quickly to the Haiti situation.”

Huffington told CNN’s Howard Kurtz that doesn’t think Glenn Beck is “the only loudmouth on TV saying irresponsible things.” But Glenn Beck is the only “loudmouth” that she appears to be concerned about.

There are plenty of loudmouths on MSNBC who speak half-truths and distortions as fact and who continually get a free pass from Huffington simply because they share the same ideology.

Dems Near Plan To Pass Health Care Bill

(AP) The White House and congressional leaders are preparing a detailed health care proposal designed to win passage without Republican support if GOP lawmakers fail to embrace bipartisan compromises at President Barack Obama's summit next week.

A senior White House official said Thursday that Democratic negotiators are resolving final differences in House and Senate health bills that passed last year with virtually no Republican help. The White House plans to post the proposals online by Monday morning, three days ahead of the Feb. 25 summit, which GOP leaders are approaching warily.

The comments signal that Obama and Congress' Democratic leaders still plan to use assertive and sometimes controversial parliamentary powers to enact a far-reaching health care bill if no GOP lawmakers get on board. Republicans and conservative activists have denounced such a strategy, and it's unclear whether enough House and Senate Democrats would back it. Both parties have used the strategy, known as reconciliation, in the past.

Obama says he is open to Republican ideas for changing the health care legislation. But many Democrats seriously doubt GOP leaders will support compromises that could draw enough lawmakers from both parties to create a bipartisan majority.

The negotiations, led by Democratic leaders with White House input, are meant to determine what changes must be made to the Senate-passed bill for House Democrats to accept it, the administration official said. The goal is to craft a reconciled measure that Senate Democrats can pass, under rules barring GOP filibusters, unless Republicans offer acceptable changes at next week's summit.

Democrats lost their ability to block filibusters when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won a Senate seat last month.

The White House official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday that Obama plans to have a health care proposal that "will take some of the best ideas and put them into a framework" ahead of the Feb. 25 summit.

House Democrats insist on several changes to the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. They include reducing or eliminating a proposed tax on generous employer-provider health plans, and eliminating a Medicaid subsidy aimed only at Nebraska.

Overall, the Democratic plans would provide health insurance to more than 30 million people now uninsured and end the industry practice of denying coverage to those with medical problems. Most Americans would be required to carry health coverage, with new government subsidies available to reduce the cost for many.

The main beneficiaries would be small businesses and people who now buy their own insurance. They now have few choices, and premium prices can spike unpredictably from year to year.

Under the Democrats' legislation, they would be able to pick a plan in a new insurance marketplace offering a range of choices similar to those available to federal employees.

The cost of the legislation - about $1 trillion over 10 years - would be paid for through Medicare cuts and a series of tax increases. In the short run, the nation would spend more on health care under the Democratic plans, since newly covered people would be able to get care they had previously put off. Over time, however, the rate of increase in medical costs would begin to slow.

Grassroots Activism, Left-wing style

From GOPUSA.com:
by Bobby Eberle

One thing that I love about the Tea Party movement is that it's a true grassroots endeavor. Just look back to last year... People were frustrated with Obama, the Democrats, and Washington in general. That frustration reached a boiling point. The word began to spread, and people assembled and showed that they weren't going to take it any more.

The results have been nothing short of incredible. Two gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia were followed by the stunning upset victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. All of these were made possible in part through the anti-big-government, power to the people message that embodies the Tea Party movement. But watch out! Now the left-wing has had enough, and they are forming their own "grassroots" effort to stop the Tea Party momentum. However, it's not grassroots at all.

First, a polling update to set the mood. According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, 75 percent of likely voters "are at least somewhat angry at the government's current policies."

The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September. Just 19% now say they're not very or not at all angry at the government's policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September. That 19% includes only eight percent (8%) who say they're not angry at all and 11% who are not very angry.

The poll goes on to reveal a key element that gives strength to the Tea Party movement: "Part of the frustration is likely due to the belief of 60% of voters that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today."

In other words, Washington is broken. The politicians are running around making deals, ignoring the Constitution, and spending, spending, spending. The Tea Party activists said, "Enough is enough!" and that message has picked up steam. Obama's agenda has stalled, and the Democrats are scared. Big spending, big government Republicans should watch out as well.

In response to the success of the Tea Party movement comes a new anti-Tea Party effort. Dubbed "The Tea Party is Over," the organization seeks to "prevent the Tea Party's dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction." Dangerous ideas? That's right. That's exactly what the web site states at www.TheTeaPartyIsOver.org.

Our Strategy is simple. This movement is a fad. Some of their ideas include the belief that programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialistic and should never have been created in the first place and that President Obama is a Socialist. Other ideas include undermining the legitimacy of the federal government in favor of a radical rightwing form of state's rights. We need to prevent their dangerous ideas from gaining a legislative foothold. So our strategy is to spread the truth about their dangerous ideas and prevent their policies from taking root in America.

Now, for all of you who just read their "strategy," I ask you to go back and read it one more time. Let it soak in. Undermining the legitimacy of the federal government? Radical rightwing form of state's rights? Are you kidding me? Isn't that what's stated in the Constitution? Doesn't America have a tradition of opposing centralized power in favor of more rights and opportunities for its citizens?

As it turns out, this "grassroots" effort is not what it appears. In a brilliant piece of reporting by FOXNews.com, we learn a "seemingly grassroots organization that's mounted an online campaign to counter the tea party movement is actually the front end of an elaborate scheme that funnels funds -- including sizable labor union contributions -- through the offices of a prominent Democratic party lawyer."

The web site states that it is part of the American Public Policy Committee. "But a close look reveals the APPC's place in a complex network of money flowing from the mountainous coffers of the country's biggest labor unions into political slush funds for Democratic activists."

Here's how it works: What appears like a local groundswell is in fact the creation of two men -- Craig Varoga and George Rakis, Democratic Party strategists who have set up a number of so-called 527 groups, the non-profit election organizations that hammer on contentious issues (think Swift Boats, for example).

Varoga and Rakis keep a central mailing address in Washington, pulling in soft money contributions from unions and other well-padded sources to engage in what amounts to a legal laundering system. The money -- tens of millions of dollars -- gets circulated around to different states by the 527s, which pay for TV ads, Internet campaigns and lobbyist salaries, all while keeping the hands of the unions clean -- for the most part.

The FOXNews.com report provides a wealth of information, and I invite you to check it out fully. The main point, however, is that the Tea Party movement is a true grassroots movement. More local chapters are popping up all the time and the members of this movement are simply people who believe that the federal government is out of control.

The response by Big Labor and radical leftwing groups is to oppose the American people by building a fake grassroots organization. It's incredible and it's scary. These organizations are so bent on keeping and expanding power, that they will try to crush the will of the American people in order to do so. Their entire premise is anti-American. The American people rise up when they feel oppressed by big government. Do these guys actually believe that in this climate there is a grassroots movement for more government, higher taxes, and less local control? I don't think so!

As long as Washington politicians don't "get it," there will be a need for the Tea Party movement. The Constitution is being completely ignored, and our leaders in Washington have too often seemed more concerned with their own perks than with cutting the budget and programs and returning their hard-earned money back to the American worker.

The Global Warming Train wreck

Here is a question for the Global Warming alarmists, if this is about science, if it really and truly is about the science, wouldn't you want us to, I don't know, stop the global warming train at this point? Wouldn't we just take a pause and say wait a minute, hang on; this is about the science, not about the politics?

There are too many things that are happening now in the global warming debate that show that this is just a massive fraud. Phil Jones, the head of the climate research unit at East Anglia University in London has been out in front of this "man made" global warming thing for sometime.

This is one of the guys that came up with the baselines, Al Gore's hockey stick thing right? This is one of the guys who kept major records of the temperature going back in history. And this is, of course, what they judge all this G.W. stuff on.

Phil Jones, the head of climate research gave an incredible interview, ground shattering if you ask me. He has admitted now that the warming of the late 20th century, the warming that alarmist’s claim is so unprecedented and therefore we must tack action, NOW! or we will all die in like 6 months (that was last year BTW). He now says the warming is indistinguishable to the warming between 1860 and 1880, 1910 and 1940, before CO2 was a significant factor. Indistinguishable.

So before there were any of our crazy SUVs affecting the climate, twice in the last 130 years the exact same thing as they're complaining about now has occurred. So he now admits that the temperature readings of only 130 years ago are more uncertain because of sparser coverage of temperature stations. So they're hedging.

What I mean is where were the thermometers 1,000 years ago? Well, they say they use "scientific” means to "estimate" the temperature based on tree growth rings and ice cores but in the end they are just guessing. A S.W.A.G. for those of you in the know!

So now that the head of the climate research institute now says the data is inconclusive, what are our alarmists doing now? Are they slowing down, taking another look at the data to see if we really need all these new taxes and regulation?

Yeah right!

John Kerry, Al gore, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, they are all moving forward, oblivious of the facts. They know there will be political ramifications, but their ideology is more important, remember Obama said he would rather be a good one term president than a mediocre two term president, that means he will risk his political career and the careers of everyone around him to push his agenda through. What the people want be dammed!

Evan as Jones now admits that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.

Let me say it again. There has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years. He admits that there has been global cooling since 2002, though not at a statistically significant pace. He admits that this might not have been the warmest period of the last 1,000 years, the central argument on the hockey stick graph.

But you have to believe this will destroy Gore and the other G.W. pimps? To me that's one of the most amazing points in the entire interview because this is deconstructing everything that Al Gore talked about in his movie. There was initially this period that was supposed to be warm that got erased as they went through. It used to be the common knowledge of all climate scientists and that got erased over the years. When Michael Mann, the guy you who first came up with the hockey stick graph said, oh, no, no, it was completely flat this entire time, has only risen recently. Well, he is saying right here that there's still significant debate going on about that. If that's true, that's a huge admission.

Huge would be an understatement. He admits that there is much debate over whether the medieval warm period was global in nature as opposed to only the northern hemisphere. If it was global, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. He admits that they don't actually know that man is responsible for global warming. They just can't explain it any other way. So they assume it's correct.

They can't explain it any other way? They can't explain what? That there hasn't been any warming since 1995? There's been no statistically significant warming? That the temperature readings of the 130 years ago are more sun yes or no, that the warming of the late 20th century is indistinguishable between 1860 and 1880, 1910 to 1940s warming? I mean, what, what are we trying to prove here?

The other shocking admission he made was, he admits that he asked a colleague to delete all e mails relating to the 2007 IPCC report.

Now, why would you do that? Unless you think you're doing something wrong, why would you do that? There's no reason to do that is science is on your side. You are the people saving the planet right?. Don't you think all of your records would be important? He also admitted to having 'trouble keeping track of information over the years' and most importantly he admits that there is no consensus among climate scientists.

Now, where's Al Gore? This is amazing. Quote: I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future but for the instrumental past as well. So there's no consensus.

I was surprised to hear him say that the idea of a scientific consensus is not the position of the vast majority of climate scientists. So the vast majority are still skeptical of man made global warming then?

So basically he thinks there's a consensus, in the scientific community, that there is no consensus.

And this "science" is what is the basis of every environmental wacko wet dream legislation on the table? Cap and Trade, Carbon Tax, the list goes on. This is also the basis for the sky is falling claim that the ice caps on the poles will be gone and we will all drown.

Consensus? NO! But an unbelievable and disturbing train wreck it is!

Bye-Bayh

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh said he would not seek re-election this November. The 'unexpected' decision now hands Republicans an opportunity for a pick-up in a year when Democrats are already defending several open Senate seats.

Bayh, also know as the Indiana slut by voters for signing on to Obama's healthcare bill without getting anything in return like Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu who got $300 million for voting yes and Nebraska senator Ben Nelson.

The two-term senator is known as a moderate Democrat. Former GOP Sen. Dan Coats had been planning to challenge Bayh in November -- but several Democratic sources said the decision appeared to personal, not political.

A senior Obama administration official said Bayh called President Obama Monday morning to discuss the decision and indicated the senator had been considering retirement for awhile. 'For a while' means right after he saw the writing on the wall after his healthcare vote.

"The president has had several conversations with Senator Bayh about 2010. Bayh made his final decision this weekend, and it is personal, not at all political," the official said. "He is by nature a governor -- not a senator."

Bayh is a former Indiana governor and secretary of state. One senior Democratic source told Fox News that recent polling showed Bayh way ahead of Coats, and that the retirement must have been a personal decision. Bayh's staff said the latest polling showed Bayh ahead of Coats by 20 points.

In prepared remarks published by The Indianapolis Star, Bayh said he was "confident" about his prospects for re-election, but discouraged in his work on Capitol Hill by excessive partisanship.

"After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned," he said, according to The Star.

One Democratic source said Bayh did not initially tell Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about his decision Monday.

Sources told Fox News that Indiana Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth are possible Democratic contenders to vie for Bayh's vacant seat.

The timing of the expected Bayh announcement creates a dilemma for Democrats, though, since the deadline for candidates' petitions to be submitted is Tuesday. That means Bayh's name could still be on the ballot in May's Democratic primary -- Democrats will have another opportunity to pick a candidate through a separate nominating process. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is considering whether it would be possible for a replacement to be named.

The retirement decision comes after Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., both announced their retirements in January. Democrats are trying to defend open seats in Delaware and Illinois as well.

Republican incumbents are abandoning seats in Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio. More Senate Democratic incumbents are considered vulnerable, however.

An e-mail from the National Republican Congressional Committee suggested that resistance to the Democratic energy agenda, which includes a cap-and-trade policy for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, is contributing to Democratic problems in Indiana and elsewhere in the region.

The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010

by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- "I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted (BEG ITAL)dissent(END ITAL). And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" -- a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.

Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.

For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.

Obama the Hungry...

From the Center for Individual Freedom...

Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and record numbers of families are losing their homes to foreclosure, but have no fear, Barack Obama just told us how to make it through these trying times.

At a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, Obama gave the American people a lecture on weathering the financial storm:

"When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."

Excuse us? Does Obama really believe families suffering hardship and misfortune are buying boats and taking extravagant vacations? How dare the president lecture the American people, who are struggling just to make ends meet, when Obama himself fails to practice what he preaches? And as he chastises with one hand, he proposes even more economic hardship and misery with the other.

Obama’s reckless campaign of tax, borrow and spend is driving this nation over a financial cliff. According to his own administration’s latest estimates, the federal deficit for this current fiscal year alone is going to be a whopping 1.6 trillion dollars. Broken down by population, that's approximately 5,300 additional dollars of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States... and that's just for this year.

And to make matters worse, Obama’s proposed 2011 budget, released this week, would triple the national debt over the next 10 years. As Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee put it:

" Not only is this budget worse than the last one, but it triples our debt within ten years, features gushers of tax increases, and relies on some partisan commission to do the heavy lifting on fiscal policy after the next election. Make no mistake: This is a budget aimed to advance the administration’s philosophy and ideology. By increasing taxes and letting the country spiral into debt, this budget is a firm step toward transforming America into a collectivist society overseen by a social-welfare state."

Rush Limbaugh, in talking about the president’s budget, gave Republicans in Congress some sage advice, but it's advice we should all follow as well:

"Judd Gregg has been going at these guys on the budget solidly for a year, and this, folks, is exactly what we need to be doing. Every Republican needs to be saying this latest Obama budget, for example, is DOA. They need to set the tone for this... you gotta go hard at these liberals. You don't play by their rules.... No, no, no. You go after these guys hard.... Do not hold back on these people."

Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. To Thatcher's words of wisdom, we offer the following corollary; the other problem with socialism is that the socialist doesn't realize that you eventually run out of other people's money... even after all the money is gone.

That's because the socialist has an insatiable desire to redistribute wealth and spend other people's money and we can clearly see that desire in Barack Obama and his far-left cronies in Congress.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee recently wrote:

"In his first 100 days as president, Obama gobbled up two major automakers, wolfed down nearly 600 banks, gorged on blue-chip companies, and scarfed down the U.S. credit industry. Now he wants dessert. President 'Obama the Hungry' makes King Henry VIII look like a compulsive dieter."

Let's go back to that statement Obama made in New Hampshire: "When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."

Remember when Obama chastised the fat-cat automakers and the banks and the corporate executives who made big, fat bonuses. What happened next? As Huckabee put it he "gobbled up two major automakers, wolfed down nearly 600 banks, gorged on blue-chip companies, and scarfed down the U.S. credit industry." And the nation is suffering.

And now, the man whose policies have compounded our hardship and suffering callously says that we should not buy boats or take Las Vegas vacations. Is that just a little disturbing? What's that? You don't own a boat? You don't vacation in Las Vegas?

Don't think you shouldn't be concerned? Perhaps this Obama-ism from the presidential campaign might provide a window to see what is down the road for each and every one of us (whether we own boats and take Las Vegas vacations or not). Remember this one?

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

Understand this much... to those on the hard-left, like Barack Obama, it makes no difference whether you're a mega-corporation that wants to make a huge profit, or an executive who wants a huge bonus, or a person who wants to buy a boat, or wants a vacation in Las Vegas, or wants an SUV, or simply wants to be well-fed, and moderately warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

To those on the hard-left, as long as there's suffering in the world, each of those pursuits is trivial, selfish and greedy, and the government has a duty to take your hard-earned money and give it to the less fortunate (if politicians can exchange that money for a vote, so much the better).

Obama calls it "social justice."

And as Huckabee says, "Obama the Hungry" is not done feeding yet. He's heading back to the feed-trough for dessert... and have no illusions... you are the dessert.

If we don't stop him, Obama and his far-left cronies in Congress won't stop feeding at our wallets until they've gobbled-up everything in sight. And when they're done, they'll pick their teeth, belch loudly and rub their bellies with satisfaction... and then, they'll go for the crumbs that are left at the table.

REUTERS PULLS MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKE Story

Truth is under attack by the dictator-in-chief...

REUTERS recently ran a story on how the Obama administration plans to sneak in back door taxes on those making less than $250,000. This of course must not be tolerated, do like good little sheep the "journalists" at REUTERS pulled the story. the site now bares a message saying a "revised" (read democrat approved) story will be posted soon.

This just a day after the administration says it plans to cut the deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years. Not sure how they plan on doing that since the treasury wants to use some of the repaid stimulus money as a small business loan scam.

So let me get this strait, the administration says taxes are not going up on the middle-class but he want to pass a multi-trillion dollar tax increase (called cap and trade) along with the healthcare "reform' bill plus there is talk of another "stimulus.'

We are already spending money we don’t have, how the hell is he going to decrease the deficit if he plans MORE spending? And don't get me started in his "spending freeze" clap trap. Sure he might 'freeze" some spending, right after he increased the spending on those same frozen programs by 40%.

And lets not forget the little tax increase heading for the middle-class when the Bush tax cuts expire and when the healthcare bill passes and you are forced to buy it (or else) and how about the itemizations the Obama wants to eliminate for the 2010 tax year like charity donations and student loan interest and teachers union dues.

Right now we are running a $1.4 trillion deficit BEFORE all the other crap is included so how much do you think he will be able to "cut" from the budget? Nothing! He is just going to increase taxes on you and me to pay for free give-always for his cronies.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot, HE isn't going to raise your taxes for Healthcare, he is going to force the states to do it. That's called plausible deniability!

I call it a bold face lie! and Reuters is playing right along. Along with the other MSM stooges who toe the party line.

The founders always believed that a free and unbiased media is essential to a free society. We are not free!

Here is the story in it original form...

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Explaining the Tea Party Movement and the Bewilderment of the Political Class

By Joe the Plumber

It is apparently a mystery to a lot political insiders why the Tea Parties have become so popular with so many Americans in state after state across the nation.

Many have simply tried to dismiss the phenomena as the ranting of a relatively small number of angry right-wing zealots. They are dead wrong but one gets the feeling the political class finds this easy dismissal far more comforting than the unsettling truths driving angry and vocal dissatisfaction by people across the political spectrum.

“Real people” like me are popular in politics right now because of the growing chasm between what the political elites of both parties see as the best course for the nation—and for themselves-- and the hopes and fears of the average American man and woman. In China that difference might mean very little to government as we saw in Tiananmen Square but, according to the Founding Fathers, such a division should not even exist here in the United States.

Those who are passionately protesting at Tea Parties have rightly detected more than a hint of contempt for the “ignorance” of the average citizen. If everything were going well such elitist arrogance might be accepted, as it has been in the past. But things are not going well for our nation and more and more people are challenging the performance, ideas and motivations of those who hold themselves out as smarter and better than the rest of us.

Can a plumber or carpenter, housewife or truck driver (clutching their bibles and guns as Mr. Obama once sneered) have anything much to add to the public policies developed at the seats of government and financial power? To those of “out here” the righteously indignant answer is “yes”--and not a moment too soon.

To understand the Tea Party perspective, elites will have to come to understand that they are seen as having failed us. Whether it’s “Brownie’s” “great job” after Hurricane Katrina or the recent “system worked” remarks by Janet Napolitano or the tax problems of various government leaders (including the chairman of the House committee writing tax laws), we feel betrayed. This judgment is actually directed at politicians on the right and the left. The arrogant and often contemptuous “smart guys” have saddled us with failure after failure and now seem somehow bewildered that people are angry.

Have political insiders given us a Social Security and Medicare system with more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities? Yes. Did the “successful” job stimulus program really end up costing more than $200,000 per low level job? Yes. Did we get help with usurious mortgages and credit card rates and life wrecking job losses caused, in truth, by bad government? No. Does the public education system really produce 50% and higher drop out rates in almost every major city? Yes. Does the unfathomable income tax system really cost us more than $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs? Yes. Has spending billions of dollars to confiscate blue-haired ladies knitting needles and millions of pen knives and lighters stopped terrorist bombers? No. And to many of us, the answer is not to shift more of the fruits of our labors to the 40% of the population who pay no income taxes at all.

If all politics is really local, consider Washington D.C.’s abysmal public education record. The political clout of teacher’s unions saw the school choice program there dismantled last year even though it was working well and wildly popular with poor black parents desperate for something better for their children. Their views were summarily ignored and then trampled on by both the White House and Congress because of the political advantage to politicians willing to ignore the fate of these children.

Are we angry? Yes. Because even worse than being routinely ignored by our leaders is the growing certainty that policy that is bad for citizens and the nation often works out to the advantage of those inside government and those close to government. If you doubt this or wonder why there is such grassroots fervor for the FairTax, for example, take another hard look at the tax code’s 67,500 pages of regulations, the “royal treatment” of Congressional tax committee members and staff and the billions spent and collected on tax lobbying every year.

The Tea Party movement will grow larger and larger and will resist being taken over by insiders who see potential for their party or candidates until the chasm between what average Americans feel and what political leaders do (in pure self interest) has been closed. To understand the anger in the Tea Parties one has to understand that many Americans still expect our government to act in the public instead private interest.

DEMOCRATS SPIN THE UNSPINNABLE

Over the past week the wheels appeared to come off the wagon when it comes to the White House plans for nationalized healthcare.

Here's David Axelrod:

What happened over the course of the weekend was there have been a series of phone Calls and conversations to try to see what the climate is, what's the possible. But what the president is always going to do is try to push hard for the American people. He is not going to give up on that because of one election in Massachusetts. He's going to continue to work hard.

We don't know what's going to happen. He is going to try to fight for absolutely as much as he can. Now, all the core principles that he set forth at the very beginning of the process...

They are look at the polling in the Washington Post.

On the Massachusetts race, it's very clear people don't want us to walk away from healthcare. They want Brown to come and work with us and not be obstructionist. And I suggest the Republican Party look at that poll. People were crying out for cooperation instead of obstructionism.

Really? The people of Massachusetts voted for Brown (who's core campaign was centered over voting AGAINST the H.C. bill) so he could go to Washington to HELP PASS the H.C. bill? These guys can’t possible be that dense. If that's all they wanted hell they could have saved themselves the hassle and voted for Martha Coakley. She would have gladly voted yes.

Again Axelrod:

Right now, Chris, we're working with leaders on Capitol Hill to try to figure out the best path forward. We don't know we don't know what that is quite yet but those discussions with happening right now to see whether or not we can get something done.

Honest to God, I can't take it. It's unbelievable. so they think we elected Scott Brown to go to Washington to not be an obstructionist when they had Martha Coakley who would have made sure there was no obstruction done. They are not even making sense with their spin anymore.

But let me try to explain what they're going to do. They are going to finally focus on jobs. But I don't understand didn't they already do this. Remember these words; "If you pass this stimulus bill, we will not go over 8% unemployment." We're now at 10. So you've already tried to "fix" the economy and it doesn't work, it failed miserably. So let me tell you why Brown had the victory, what is victory was about. It was about healthcare. It was about the economy. It was about terrorism. It was about Obama. And it's also about incumbency. Coakley was part of the political machine.

That's the point everybody needs to understand is the machine. That's why independents are coming out. That's why Obama won, he ran AGAINST the machine, they thought he would break the machine. But they didn't realize that he WAS the machine!

But lets move on to the next election, this fall. Here's what I would love to here a candidate to say and do.

I want a candidate to be honest, to look me in the eyes and say what they really mean and mean what they say. I don't want to hear any of the double speak, I don't want to hear any political speak that sounds like it came from some focus group. I want you to tell me exactly what you believe. I want to know that you understand that you work for me and not the machine. I want to know that you're an American that believes in the Constitution. Not some evolving progressive document but the Constitution. As it's written! I'd like to hear you talk a little bit about James Madison. I'd like to hear you talk a little bit about the founding fathers. I want to know. I don't care if you're Republican, I don't care if you're a Democrat or an independent. I don't care. To me it's about the issues and what you actually believe. I don't even care if you meet with lobbyists as long as you're willing to put all of those meetings up on YouTube.

You want to meet with special interest, fine. That is your choice, just have a little camera there so WE THE PEOPLE can see what you doing. Just going to put it up on YouTube because whether you understand or not, you represent me, you don’t rule over me.

Shouldn't I be able to know what you're doing? The founding Fathers thought so.Promise me that you're never going to lie to me. Because I'm promising you, that if you do lie, I'm done with you. You lie on anything, I'm done with you, done. Promise me that you're not going to vote for any budget increase. I want a decrease, I don't want a freeze, I want a decrease!

I don't want tax increases, I don't want pork. I don't care how minuscule this pork is. None. In fact, I every member of congress, including YOU Mr./Mrs. President to work for free until you get this deficit under control. And if you unwilling to do that whole free thing, I want a dam good reason as to why.

I want you to cut the salaries of government employees as much as my salary has been cut till this deficit is gone and the debt is paid off!

I want to hear you call a terrorists a terrorists, they are not enemy combatants ore detainees or even prisoners, they are terrorists, period!. I want to hear you say you are going to treat them as terrorists, not as some police action and not as some bad guys that are just misunderstood and we need to sit down and have a chat with them.

I also don't care who contributes to your campaign as long as you don't know who they. You keep those campaign lists away from you, forever. And that you never forget YOU WORK FOR ME!

I want you to tell me that only legal immigrants are going to enter our country, period! I do not want to want to have any 'racist' conversations with you because I believe the American people are not racist. I am sure that what, maybe, 10% of Americans might be racist but that's not generally who they are. So I'm not going to have that conversation, BUT, if you've demonstrated that you are a racist, if you've got a little pointy hood, we should probably know about that now. But if the charges about you being a racist are you just that you want legal immigrants, then I don't have a problem with that. I need you to say only legal immigrants.

I want somebody to say, we're in for some tough times and here's why: look at the deficit, look at the spending, look at the corruption. And then show me you have a plan that includes me. I want you to tell me that you're not going to go in and bargain for any, like, special favors. If it's wrong for the country, I don't care how right it is for your state. Tell me how many terms you are going to serve and then stick to it. I don't need you to be a golfer, I don't need you to be, you know, a hero. You know, I want you to be like my grandfather. He was a hero to me. He was a teacher, he was a mentor, he was an honest man. That's all I need you to be. Admit to me that you've made mistakes. There are going to be some more. But also admit to me that your big mistakes are in the past, that you've made mistakes maybe but you're not repeating them. You know what I mean? I don't care what you did 15 years ago, I really don't. I don't care what you did 10 years ago. I don't care what you did 5 years ago, although it is starting to be relevant. I really need to see the document Asian of what you've done and how you've changed if it's been five years. And then just remember this one thing. Words have meaning because words, as a man thinks, he becomes. Words have meaning. They have action. God spoke it and it became. Pharaoh let it be written, let it be said. Let it be written, let it be done. It's the same thing.

If you're weak, if you're unsure, if you're not sure what's important in life, if you're not willing to sacrifice your name, your reputation, really your life at this point, if you're not willing because that's really, I mean, you are dealing with those kinds of people. If you're not willing to say these things I believe and I will, I'll die for, then you are not the guy. And that's okay. Just get out of the way so we can find the guy. And just know that if that's the guy you are going in, have you ever, ever heard of anybody being a better man when they left Washington?

If you are not that guy going in, you don't stand a chance of surviving. And coming out and getting home with your soul. That's probably a good reason for term limits for anybody who's reasonable. I probably shouldn't spend so much time there because I'll lose my soul eventually.

You've got to be the strong person going in. You have to know what you're up against. And if you are willing to fight it and you are willing to not be a part of the machine but dismantle the machine, man, you are going to have all kinds of support. But just a warning. The minute you lie to us, you're done. I can handle people who are lie if I know they're liars. For instance, if I knew that's what we were getting into with Barack Obama, we knew we were getting into that. So I'm not so surprised. But if you're going to campaign as one of us, you know, me and you against the machine, and you become part of the Borg, oh, no, that's not going to go well, for you.

STATE OF THE UNION FACT CHECK

WASHINGTON -- President Obama, who once considered government spending freezes a hatchet job, told Americans on Wednesday it's now part of his solution to the exploding deficit. He didn't explain what had changed.

His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "common-sense" call to action.

A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't."

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the deficit -- and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year to year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain's.

------

OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted -- a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

------

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said: "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage -- the majority of Americans under age 65 -- in the plans they already have. But Obama can't guarantee g point of contention for the president. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.

The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million "compared with what those values would have been otherwise." It said the ranges "reflect the uncertainty of such estimates." And it added: "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."

------

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign -- to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

------

OBAMA: "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year."

THE FACTS: Identifying savings is far from achieving them. If the past is any guide, little will result from this exercise because Congress routinely rejects the White House's suggested spending cuts.

------

OBAMA: "The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

------

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008."

THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

Obama to create a ‘Debt Reduction Commission’ What could go wrong?

From the townhall.com article entitled 'The Debt Reduction Commission: Another Gergen-Shields Show'
by Ken Blackwell

Any time one of the talking heads in the fishbowl I call Washington DC gets a Big Idea about the need to 'get beyond partisanship', hide your wallet.

The latest Big Idea is President Obama’s proposal for an Executive Commission on Debt Reduction. The idea is modeled on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). That commission had as its task closing military bases we thought we did not need in the post-Cold War era. The reason we needed BRAC, we were told, is that too many local congressmen were protecting the bases in their own districts and none of the excess bases could be closed. It was blowing out the Pentagon budget, they said.

Now President Obama wants a commission to help him stop excess spending. Call me cynical, but isn't this like a cocaine addict wanting a commission to reduce drug use.

Even IF his budget busting Health Care proposals ultimately fail (here's hoping they do), the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are projected to grow so vast that they will be 300% of the Gross Domestic Product by the year 2050. This would require tax hikes of $12,072 per family in the U.S.

Clearly, we can’t continue on this glide path.

The President offered this proposal for an 18-member Executive Commission. That ought to be cheap to run. Just imagine the staff, travel to research sites for that! Six of the members would be named by Democrats in Congress, six by Republicans, and the remaining six would be named by Mr. Obama himself (except that of his share, at least two would have to be Republicans and no more than four could be Democrats.)

I already know what this adventure in bi-partisanship would look like. It would look like the famous Gergen-Shield matchup on PBS. When the publicly-funded Jim Lehrer Newshour reached out for a Republican and a Democrat to give a thin veneer of bi-partisanship, they recruited David Gergen and Mark Shields. This duo was left and lefter.

David Gergen is the quintcential RHINO (Republican in Name Only). He was the classic trimmer in the Reagan White House. He went on serve in the Bill Clinton White House. He was most recently seen moderating the Martha Coakley-Scott Brown-(Not That) Joe Kennedy debate in Massachusetts.

Gergen asked Scott Brown if he really intended to “overturn” Roe v. Wade? Pro-choice Gergen knows that framing a question on abortion that includes the word “overturn” is the best way to assure a strong majority against. Americans don’t want to overturn anything. Sounds radical. Sounds dangerous. Think of an SUV in a ditch.

Gergen then opened up on Scott Brown. Would you really sit in “Ted Kennedy’s seat” and vote against the cause to which Kennedy devoted his life? How about that for a blow below the belt? And this is PBS’ idea of a Republican!

Not intentionally, Gergen gave Brown an opening for the greatest line of the night: “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the People’s Seat.” That line may have won the election for Scott Brown. “People’s Seat” was the slogan that glittered on stage when Scott Brown claimed victory. But surely no thanks to David RINO Gergen.

And that’s what the Obama Executive Commission on Debt Reduction will look like. Gergens galore. Their job will be to rope Republicans into voting huge new tax increases.

They’ll be famous “deficit hawks.” But they’ll know nothing about job creation and small business promotion. Some of those congressionally appointed commissioners could include the very Members voters want to oust this fall. Deficit hawks could soon change their feather and become lame ducks.

I would like to make a suggestion to save money. A few years ago, a man was hired by a major corporation at a salary of $100,000/year plus. His task? Figure how to save money for the company. His solution? He fired himself! Now THAT'S thinking outside the box!

My suggestion is to Start by cutting the waste and fraud. A government watchdog i read a year or so ago said that as much as 30% of the money our government spends is wasted. I bet it's more now.

One last observation, I wonder how much all those czars are costing us?

Breaking news: Barack Obama is human.

by Austin Hill

He [Obama] is not a “messiah,” he is not omniscient, and he is not capable, all on his own, of “fixing everything” that is wrong with America.

Here’s another bit of “news” that is beginning to “break:” The President’s repeated attempts to fix everything can actually make matters worse instead of better. And given the results of a poll released last week by Bloomberg news service – according to them 77% of American investors view the President as “anti-business”- it seems that this painful reality of “presidential fixes” is hitting-home.

For those who are surprised by Obama’s heavy-handed, big-government, “anti-business” policy proposals, I respectfully ask “why?” Were you watching and listening carefully during the last presidential election cycle? Or were you, perhaps, just caught-up in the “style” of the Obama experience, and ignoring the “substance” of his rhetoric?

In case you missed it, let me assure you – what we know today as “Obamanomics” is quite consistent with the themes and ideas upon which Senator Obama campaigned for the presidency. The difference, perhaps, is that it apparently “sounded so good” (at least to some people) as campaign rhetoric, but as policy it “hurts so bad.”

Take, for example, the President’s proposed “crackdown” on the banking industry from last week. Lending institutions aren’t lending enough as it is, not even to people with good credit, and threatening banks with more penalties and regulations will likely make this situation worse (notice how the stock market tumbled after Obama’s remarks).

Yet as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama was quite candid about his desire to control banks, so much so that he he once proposed taxing capital. I don’t mean taxing “capital gains,” or interest income. I mean that the man who is now our President campaigned, in part, on a pledge to tax money that is simply sitting in banks.

Our President also campaigned during the 2008 oil price spike on a promise to tax the so-called “windfall profits” of petroleum companies (as though more taxes would have driven prices down); he praised China during the 2008 Olympics for their willingness to “invest” in “infrastructure” (never before in my lifetime had a President openly praised a Communist government); and he frequently lectured about his desire to bring America to “economic justice,” never really explaining what that would entail, yet being clear that the American economic system is inherently “unjust.”

So rest assured – the President’s control over banks, General Motors, Chrysler, and the salaries that executives are “allowed” to earn, are all quite consistent with the vision that the candidate proposed.

But for those who still embrace this “big government” vision, yet are shocked that Barack Obama has allowed corruption to creep-in, I have different questions: why are you so fatally trusting of politicians? And why did you assume that Barack Obama would be corruption-free?

Writing at the Huffington Post last weekend, noted liberal columnist Robert Kuttner expressed frustration that Obama had cut deals with insurance and healthcare companies, in order to move his healthcare proposals forward. Kuttner also lamented that Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) was fighting-off such a huge backlash in his home state over his support of Obamacare that he was running TV ads claiming that Obamacare is not a government run program. “That's one hell of a slogan” Kuttner noted, “for a party that relies on democratically elected government to offset the insecurity, inequality and insanity generated by private commercial forces. If not-run-by-government is the Democrats' credo, why bother?”

Kuttner, like many liberals, is frustrated that Obamacare represents government that isn’t “big enough.” But notice the assumptions with which he is operating: business owners (“commercial forces”) are assumed to be necessarily greedy, self-interested, and destructive, but politicians are thought to be benevolent beings that only bring us the “security,” “equality,” and “sanity” that we need.

Kuttner’s feelings are what they are. But historical facts tell us that market competition tames the bad behavior of business owners (and the healthcare industry can and should be a lot more competitive), while simplisticly handing-over increasing control of economic resources to politicians enables politicians to be corrupt.

Our nation’s fourth President James Madison, writing in “The Federalist Papers” (“Federalist 51” to be precise), said it this way: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government……”

Today, our forty-fourth President Barack Obama is making-good on his pledges to control as much of our economy as he possibly can. Will America change course and embrace the wisdom of James Madison, and of history?

Or must we do things Obama’s way?

Coakley Would Be Quayled -- If She Were a Republican

by Mona Charen, Townhall.com

Oh, how different the world would look if Martha Coakley were a Republican! As it is, she gets the sort of gentle rebukes the press reserves for Democrats. Her campaign was too "lackadaisical," we are told. She was "overconfident" and too "buttoned down." Reading and watching the MSM, you wouldn't know that Coakley is a walking minefield. There is now -- and there always has been -- a completely different set of rules for Republicans.

If a Republican candidate in such a high-profile contest put out campaign literature that misspelled the name of her state, it would be worth, let's see, mentions on every Sunday gabfest and two, maybe three, jokes on the late-night shows. Dan Quayle's misspelling is the stuff of legend. Coakley's? Not so much.

When Coakley was challenged in an October debate about her lack of foreign policy credentials, she parried: "I have a sister who lives overseas, and she's been in England and now lives in the Middle East." Hmm. Just a few months ago, Sarah Palin said something similar, and the smart set has not finished laughing yet. Palin didn't say "I can see Russia from my house!" But the Tina Fey parody has replaced the less amusing truth. "Saturday Night Live" can be brilliant. But if Palin's comment was worthy of such mockery, wasn't Coakley's equally so? Just asking.

The woman who would like to sit in the U.S. Senate announced last week that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan. Not since Joe Biden boasted (during the 2008 vice presidential debate) that he had chased Hezbollah from Lebanon have we heard such a loony claim. Where are the titters?

The Democrats style themselves as being in the party of the little guy. They're for the people rather than for the "special interests." Just ask them. Yet Martha Coakley sneered at the idea of shaking voters' hands "in the cold" and chose to spend a critical night just seven days before the election in Washington, D.C., at a high-roller fundraiser sponsored by drug and insurance companies. The host committee included Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca and more. Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth and UnitedHealth all were sipping white wine with Coakley.

When the president stumped for Coakley in Massachusetts on Sunday, he praised her humble ambitions: "She became a lawyer not to cash in, but to give hardworking people a fair shake. She became a lawyer to fight for working families like the one she grew up in." Oh, yes, and "she went after big insurance companies that misled people."

Members of the Fourth Estate always claim that hypocrisy is what they cannot stand. They are, they say, utterly nonpartisan scourges of that least forgivable political sin. Accordingly, they explain, if a Republican "family values" candidate is caught in a sexual indiscretion, he's fair game (even if he never has mentioned family values). But when Obama broke his solemn promise to abide by campaign finance limits and Coakley is passing the hat for insurance company cash, well, how about those Yankees?

Speaking of sports teams, Coakley is so fortunate to be a Democrat -- and ipso facto a woman of the people -- because she's a little rusty on her Massachusetts sports knowledge. Asked on a radio program about Curt Schilling's support for her opponent, Coakley dismissed Schilling as a Yankees fan. The incredulous interviewer could only stammer, "Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?" Now it was Coakley's turn to stammer: "Oh, am I wrong about that?"

She won't get hammered for it. She's a Democrat.

But in the final hours of the campaign, Coakley is an increasingly desperate Democrat who has stooped to slander. A lurid flier aimed at female voters claims that "1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away." Brown is, as it happens, pro-choice (though he's in favor of more restrictions than Coakley is). This vile lie was based on Brown's support for a conscience exemption (which also was supported by Ted Kennedy) for emergency room personnel who do not wish to prescribe the abortifacient "morning-after pill." That's a world away from closing hospital doors on rape victims.

Coakley will get a pass on all this from the press. It's good to be a Democrat. Except, perhaps, on Wednesday morning.

Evil, Capitalistic, Bigoted America Comes to Haiti’s Assistance

by Doug Giles (townhall.com)

Thursday morning I was watching Fox & Friends to see what was going down in the aftermath of the apocalyptic earthquake that rocked Haiti. As I sat there in my shorts drinking my coffee, I was gobsmacked as I viewed the insane carnage inflicted by the 7.0 death-dealer that crushed that little nation seven hundred miles from my Miami bunker.

As the horrendous before and after satellite images of a city flattened by mother nature rolled, I became prouder and prouder of how the U.S., our magnificent military, and a stack of high-quality Christian organizations are flying into high gear with millions of dollars and thousands of people to sacrificially help—as in risk their lives—to do whatever they can to assist during such unimaginable suffering.

Basking in the warm glow of the American spirit in such a tragic event, I started getting kinda, sorta ticked off regarding how the Lefties repeatedly pitch our nation as an evil, bigoted, greedy, capitalistic, militarily-oppressive regime that loves to squish the underdogs.

Y’know, in reality—as in a blistering, natural disaster reality—one always finds that it is America that rocks the hardest in regard to real relief. We blow away other nations. Yep, whether it is a tsunami or an earthquake, you can count on evil, mean, nasty, bigoted, murderous, Christian American men and women to be the first responders to offer no-BS help in time of need.

It’ll be interesting to see how many (and at what level) Muslim organizations and nations, atheist organizations, Code Pink, PETA punks, Chavez and Castro, GLSEN, euro-socialist dillweeds, Green Peace, and Avatar’s woodsy blue people pony up and help the Haitians through their hellish nightmare. I wonder if they’ll even come close to our American Judeo-Christian largesse?

It’s also really interesting to me how mean, white America runs to relieve a city that’s 99.9% black without blinking. At least we’re not going around like Reid, Biden and Byrd and calling them “clean Negroes” who can turn their black slang on and off.

This just in! A buddy of mine Facebooked me a moment ago about how a couple of his evil Christian friends just got back from a 10-day missions trip to Haiti and are trying to head back. He continued to say that it is, no doubt, just a show they're putting on to advance the conservative agenda and subvert the Religion of Peace.

In addition, my co-host on ClashRadio.com, Steve Pauwels sent me this note on Friday regarding his Marine son Sam saying, “We seek your prayers for our middle son, Sam, who is now awaiting his newest deployment down to Haiti … When I asked Sam how he was doing one hour ago, he said: "Fine. We just want to go." (Note; he and his unit have been back in the states for ONE MONTH after being overseas for six months).” Ah, our evil wicked soldiers, eh Lefties?

You know, at the end of the day, countries and people who need true aid and who long for authentic liberty always look to the massive helping hands of the Judeo-Christian rooted, God blessed American men, women and military—and not to secularists, atheists, Islamists and grimy hippies who regularly blather about how bad America is.

So instead of all the bitching and complaining about the Evil, Capitalistic, Bigoted America, how about something new? Just say THANK YOU!

RACE POLITICS AT IT'S BEST!

Imagine who aid this and then imagine what the reaction is...

"" was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'

Think this might be some RHINO trying to score points or some 'right-wing' racists nut job?

Nope, none other than the gift that keeps on giving, Harry Reid!

A new book coming out about the 2008 election includes some controversial quotes that may be a "game changer" for the public's opinion of Majority Leader Harry Reid. According to the book, Reid had some interesting ways to describe his enthusiasm for the candidacy of then-Senator Barack Obama. Politico reports:

According to the new book "Game Change," Reid "was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he said privately.

Though the claim in the book is not sourced, Reid has preemptively issued the following apology:

I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.

I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.

Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues important to African American community.

Uh, "poor choice of words" would be a considerable understatement. Reid was essentially implying that candidate Obama would do well because he wasn't too black. And yet it's we conservatives who are labeled bigoted racists? Sheesh.

Fannie’s Christmas Eve Surprise

From the New York Times of all things...

The government did something naughty on Christmas Eve.

On Dec. 24, the Treasury Department said in a short statement that it would provide uncapped support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years so they can maintain a positive net worth.

In connection with this announcement, the mortgage giants also announced in regulatory filings that they would pay their executives up to $42 million in compensation in 2009.

When done by private companies, this type of stealth announcement provokes cries of bad disclosure practices. In this case, however, we’re talking about Fannie and Freddie, whose new government backstop is momentous and likely to be the financial story of 2010 as the government risks hundreds of billions of dollars on these entities to try and shore up the housing market.

It is in this vein that Treasury’s failure to say why it was taking this action is puzzling. Over the holidays a number of observers – Tim Duy, Calculated Risk, Dean Baker and The New York Times’s own Paul Krugman – provided terrific commentary on the government’s reinforced support.

DEMOCRATS RESORT TO BRIBERY AND THREATS TO PASS OBAMACARE

According to recent reports, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are actually threatening Members of Congress.

Blogger Alan Caruba said:

"The bribery and thuggish pressures and threats against Democrat Senators and Representatives to pass the (Healthcare) bill reveal a political leadership more devoted to ideology than the will of the People. ... it is an example of naked Communism at work. It is a bill put together behind closed doors and so extensive its control of the lives of Americans literally determines who lives and who dies."

Why are they so desperate?

Because, contrary to what you've been hearing from the liberal mainstream media, ObamaCare is not a done deal... and Obama, Pelosi and Reid know it.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid know that ObamaCare can be stopped. That's why they are desperately issuing threats and cutting secret deals.

And their desperation is proof positive that you can stop them.

Need more proof?...

LifeNews.com issued the following item:

"Congressman Bart Stupak... says the Obama administration is trying to bully him. ... Stupak told CNS News that the White House and top Congressional Democrats are attempting to twist his arm to accept the Reid-Nelson 'compromise' language that still allows massive taxpayer financing of abortions."

But they're just not issuing threats. Another report from Robert Costa with National Review indicates that Obama, Pelosi and Reid may have moved from bullying to bribery:

"After watching the Senate’s health-care debate, Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) tells NRO that he has one message for President Obama and House speaker Nancy Pelosi: 'You don’t buy me off.'"

"Stupak tells us that he’s disappointed that Democratic leaders have offered him legislative favors in exchange for supporting Obamacare. “'This shouldn’t be a bill where you use hush money,' says Stupak."

Stupak may be standing firm in opposition to these sickening tactics but don't count on that to last.

Senator Ben Nelson's recent capitulation, which allowed ObamaCare to move forward, should teach us that there is no such thing as a 'moderate' democrat, just one that has not yet been give enough bribe money or promises of power to sell his vote.

All this bribary and arm twisting and down right threats prove one thing, This Process Was Not Compromise. This Process Was Corruption!

Those were the words of Tom Coburn, the good Senator from Oklahoma who is also a doctor. Here's more of what he had to say on the matter:

"This vote is indeed historic. This Congress will be remembered for its arrogance, corruption and stupidity. In the year of 2009, a Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs and embarked on an ideological crusade to bring our nation as close to single-payer, government-run health care as possible. If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day...."

Coburn goes on to say:

"This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold. ... The president and his allies genuinely believe that expanding government's control over health care is the way to control health care costs, improve lives and extend life spans. I don't question their motives, but I do question their judgment. History has already judged this argument and put it in its ash heap. The experience of government-run health care in the United States and around the world shows that access to a government program is not access to health care."

Erik Rush with WorldNetDaily.com went further when he wrote:

"Barack Obama is a dedicated ideologue. ... Americans have every reason to hold animas for their lawmakers. They have exploited their constituents' trust and imperiled their security, proving themselves to be a collection of borderline sociopaths and political prostitutes."

As mentioned above, this fight is far from over. Both the House and the Senate will have to vote yet again to pass ObamaCare.

And changing just a few votes could mean victory for the American people. There is still time to defeat ObamaCare, but we, the American people, cannot let up now.

We can stop it. We must stop it.

TSA subpoenas bloggers, demands names of sources

By EILEEN SULLIVAN

As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.

TSA special agents served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott, demanding that they reveal who leaked the security directive to them. The government says the directive was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.

Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents Tuesday night at his Connecticut home for about three hours and again on Wednesday morning when he was forced to hand over his lap top computer. Frischling said the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo.

"It literally showed up in my box," Frischling told The Associated Press. "I do not know who it came from." He said he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect.

In a Dec. 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them. Elliott did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

The TSA declined to say how many people were subpoenaed.

The directive was dated Dec. 25 and was issued after a 23-year-old Nigerian man was charged with attempting to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight as it approached Detroit from Amsterdam. The bomb, which allegedly was hidden in Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's underwear, malfunctioned and no one was killed. Authorities said the device included a syringe and a condom-like bag filled with powder that the FBI determined to be PETN, a common explosive.

The near-miss attack has prompted President Barack Obama to order a review of what intelligence information the government had about Abdulmutallab and why it wasn't shared with the appropriate agencies. He also ordered a review of U.S. aviation security. The government has spent billions of dollars and undergone massive reorganizations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

The TSA directive outlined new screening measures that went into effect the same day as the airliner incident. It included many procedures that would be apparent to the traveling public, such as screening at boarding gates, patting down the upper legs and torso, physically inspecting all travelers' belongings, looking carefully at syringes with powders and liquids, requiring that passengers remain in their seats one hour before landing, and disabling all onboard communications systems, including what is provided by the airline.

It also listed people who would be exempted from these screening procedures such as heads of state and their families.

This is the second time in a month that the TSA has found some of its sensitive airline security documents on the Internet.

I still find it interesting that in the world of the left, anyone who disagrees with them (aka "right-wing extremists) are a larger threat than a nut job Muslim terrorists with bomb underwear!

Also, We all know that if it were Bush in the WH when this happened the leftists and the MSM would be howling about the abrogation of civil rights by the "evil Bush Administration", but there won't be one critical word out of any of them since Barry is in the White Crib.

PELOSI AND REID HAVE ONE LESS STOOGE

By Chad Pergram

Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, announced Tuesday that he's switching parties to become a Republican.

"I have become increasingly concerned that the bills and policies pushed by the current Democratic leadership are not good for north Alabama or our nation," Griffith said during a press conference Tuesday.

"I am announcing today that I'm joining the Republican conference immediately," he said. "Our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt."

Griffith, a retired oncologist and businessman, succeeded former Democratic Rep. Bud Cramer, who retired earlier this year, in a hard-fought contest for the northern Alabama seat.

Republicans thought that district would be hard for Democrats to hold without Cramer on the ballot, but Griffith defeated Republican Wayne Parker by 4 points -- 52-48 percent -- even though Republican presidential nominee John McCain won every county in the district.

Former President George W. Bush won the district by double digits in both of his races.

In Congress, Griffith joined the Blue Dogs, the coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats in the House. He voted against the health care reform bill in November.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen, blasted the decision, saying the Alabama lawmaker has failed to honor Democrats' "commitment" to him.

"House Democratic Members and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took Parker Griffith at his word and, as a result, invested a great deal in working with Alabamans to bring Mr. Griffith to Congress," Van Hollen said in a statement. "We were committed to helping Mr. Griffith deliver for his constituents and successfully helped Mr. Griffith fend off the personal attacks against him from the far right.

"Mr. Griffith, failing to honor our commitment to him, has a duty and responsibility to return to Democratic members and the DCCC the financial resources that were invested in him," he added. "His constituents will hold him accountable for failing to keep his commitments."

Griffith said he would write a check to voters who wanted a refund.

Earlier this year, Sen. Arlen Specter moved from the Republican Party to the majority Democratic Party but Griffith's party switch from the majority to the minority party is rare.

Florida Rep. Andy Ireland was elected to the House in 1980 as a Democrat when that party held control. But in 1984, Ireland switched to join the GOP and thus serve in the minority. He continued to serve until 1993, when he did not seek re-election to the House. In 1994, Rep. Michael Forbes of New York was elected as a Republican but switched to the minority Democrats in 1999. He did not receive the Democratic nomination in 2000 and lost the seat.

Griffith's thinking may not be a total surprise, however. In August, he told voters at a town hall meeting at the University of North Alabama that if given the chance he would not vote again for Nancy Pelosi as House speaker.

"I would not vote for her. Someone that divisive and that polarizing cannot bring us together," he said.

Republicans in the Alabama delegation met with Griffith the middle of last week and asked him to switch and he agreed. Alabama's two U.S. senators, as well as Rep. Robert Aderholt, whose district borders Griffith's, were instrumental in helping Griffith change his mind. Senior Sen. Richard Shelby is himself a former Democrat who switched parties while in office.

"I believe his voting record and public statements on many important issues demonstrate an approach to government and spending that is incompatible with the national Democratic Party. As a Republican, he will be affirmed in his concerns about reckless spending and governmental overreach, rather than being ostracized for them," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Rep. Mike Rogers, another Alabama Republican, called the switch "a great development," and likened it to the party switch by Louisiana Rep. Rodney Alexander, who moved from the Democrats to the GOP about six years ago.

"He just could not stomach what the Democrats are doing any longer," Rogers said of Griffith's move.

Griffith's departure means the Democrats will still hold an advantage of 257 seats to the GOP's 178. But the Democratic majority is expected to shrink by at least two seats again in January. Reps. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., and Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, are expected to resign.

CASH FOR CLOTURE

While most Americans are busy with Christmas shopping, welcoming family members from out of town and preparing food for Christmas celebrations this week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), however, is the Grinch who stole Christmas for every member of the Senate, their families, and staff members who are being forced to stay in D.C. for a Christmas Eve day vote on nationalizing health care.

Reid is handing out cash for cloture votes like Santa Claus handing out candy canes during the Macy’s Day Parade.

Reid’s is using bribes, extortion, threats, and secrecy to ram through Obama’s socialized medicine plan – at a time when most Americans are thinking about the celebration of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.

Reid has handed out $300 million to Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her vote; $100 million in Medicaid assistance for Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE); a sweetheart insurance deal for Nebraska and Michigan insurance companies to benefit Nelson and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI); Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) gets $100 million for a hospital; Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) gets money for ACORN; Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) gets $10 billion for community health centers; Sen. Ben Nelson (D-FL) gets a special deal in Florida for Medicare Advantage Recipients; Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) gets extra Medicare benefits for Montana residents; Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) wins Medicare funding for Iowa hospitals; Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) gets higher Medicare payments for rural hospitals.

How many more bribes will he offer to get nationalized health care? He’s clearly willing to do anything to get it done.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) claimed he was not going to vote for the Reid bill unless there were prohibitions against the use of federal dollars to kill unborn children. Nelson sold us out and voted for cloture last week, which gave Reid the 60 votes needed to push for a vote on Christmas Eve.

The abortion coverage is still in the bill. It’s just hidden. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) has exposed this fake prohibition against the use of federal money for abortion. In Politico, Brownback noted:

The amended bill in the Senate does not include the Stupak amendment language from the House bill that would prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for elective abortions. Instead, states are given the option to opt out of providing insurance coverage of abortions. But while states are given the option to opt out, taxpayers in a state that opts out would still see their federal tax dollars fund elective abortions in other states. In other words, even taxpayers in states that opt out of providing abortion coverage cannot opt out of paying for elective abortion.

The bill would also undermine existing state restrictions on abortion because it pre-empts state laws and conflicts with some existing state regulations. What abortion proponents have been unable to achieve through the legislatures or the courts, they would now achieve through a so-called health care reform bill.

Also, the bill as written allows executive branch officials to require that private health plans cover abortion simply by defining them as “preventive care.” This is possible because amendments to strike this definition were defeated. Smuggling this kind of fundamental change into the bill is particularly offensive, since, as President Barack Obama himself said, this is supposed to be a health care bill, not an abortion bill. So much for the status quo.

Did Nelson vote for this because of the bribe from Reid or from the threat from the White House to close down the Strategic Command air force base in his state? Twenty Senators are asking for an investigation into the White House threat against Nelson.

Many Nebraskans are angry with Nelson for his vote, including his home state colleague U.S. Senator Mike Johanns (R). According to Johanns: “Nebraskans are frustrated and angry that our beloved state has been thrust into the same pot with all of the other special deals that get cut here. In fact... they're outraged that a backroom deal for our state might have been what puts this deal across the finish line.”

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman said he wants no part of special favors and made it clear that “the responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson.”

If you were not already steaming over this unconstitutional bill, how about this? Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) uncovered a provision hidden in the Reid bill that prohibits future Congresses from amending or repealing a rationing board in Reid’s health care bill. DeMint points out that this provision is a change in the Senate rules, which needs a two-thirds majority to change. But, he was told by the Senate President on December 22, that the provision is only a “procedural change” – not a rule change. In effect, Reid’s bill will make it impossible to change after it is passed.

As Sen. DeMint noted:

There’s one provision that I found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”

And I quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

This is not legislation. It’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future Congresses.

Many Republican Senators are doing whatever they can to stop Reid from ramming socialized medicine down our throats. On Wednesday, they will challenge the lack of transparency displayed by Reid and his Democrat cronies in the Senate. At issue is whether Reid has violated Rule 44 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which requires Senators to publicly disclose congressionally directed spending (earmarks).

Contact your Senators immediately and urge them to vote NO on Reid’s plan to nationalize our health care. Action is needed before the Christmas Eve day vote.

Hoax and Change

The American people don't want it. Obama wants the power. Obama wants control of 20% of the American economy. That's all there is to it. And he will do anything to get it.

This includes extortion and blackmail. Sounds like the Obama gang is taking it's clues from Michael corleone because Obama and the Democrats are making Senator Ben Nelson "an offer he can't refuse."

That offer is this; vote yes on Obamacare or we close Offutt Air Force Base which is in Nelson's home state.

So, to get his agenda passed, a bill 60% of the American people say they do not want, he is willing to sacrifice the nations national security? Why not, the Obama administration has little left to use for leverage, so why not national security? After all, if we’re going to bring terrorists into Illinois, what does it matter if we put the US Strategic Command on wheels for a few years?

For those who may not know, Offutt Air Force Base is home of the 55th fighter Wing, the Fightin' Fifty-Fifth. Offutt's diverse missions and global responsibilities put it on the cutting edge of the Air Force's transformation. It's where Bush went after 911. It is a global defense base.

Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a "naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson's vote." They are "threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?" asked the Senate staffer.

Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.

So this is what we have come to? Chicago politics in Washington? IS Obama channeling Capone?

For weeks if not months the Demo-Rats have been scrambling to buy, extort or down right threatened senators to vote for this crap sandwich so they can give Obama a "win" before the end of the year.

They bought Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D) vote for $300 million (a fact she actually bragged about). Knowing they couldn't buy Lieberman or Nelson they move to extortion.

They have used surrogates to threatened to throw Senator Lieberman's wife off of her Breast Cancer Charitable Panel if he didn't vote for the health care now it's Senator Nelson's turn.

One reason for the extortion attempt is that the latest version still hasn’t won any converts among the GOP. Susan Collins (R-ME), once considered a likely supporter of ObamaCare, announced today that the elimination of the public option and the Medicare buy-in isn’t enough to rescue the bill:

Today Collins told reporters that the bill under consideration in the Senate is “too deeply flawed for me to support it.”

“I don’t see voting for the current bill that is on the floor, even with the improvements that have been made,” Collins said. “I’m very leery of the impact of nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts, particularly the cuts in home health care, which are completely counterproductive to the goal of lowering costs."

Collins explained that she is continuing to work on the bill not because she intends to vote for it but because, “I think something is going to pass, and I would like to make that bill as good as possible, even if ultimately it’s not a bill that I can support.”

Collins’ colleague from Maine, Olympia Snowe, is not likely to contradict her, and no other Republicans will cast a vote for this monstrosity. Without the language prohibiting abortion funding, Nelson’s not likely to go for it, either, which leaves Reid at 59 votes — maybe. He may face some rebellion from the progressive side of his caucus, several of whom pledged not to vote for a bill without any kind of public option. Getting Lieberman on board may wind up creating just another problem for Reid … unless the White House intends on threatening more base closures and disruption for national security.

President Obama seems to have run out of both charm and ideas

The emperor has no clothes and the American people know it! And he's still whining about the problems he inherited and blaming Republicans.

In the presidents "jobs' speech yesterday one can conclude, from the string of whoppers he told, he's not only run out of charm and ideas he has also run out of facts.

He might as well be barking at the moon. That's sort of what he is doing, because the American people are tuning him out at a stunning pace.

The latest Gallup Poll gives him a record low 47 percent approval. Only 26 percent in another poll say he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Naturally, his press secretary attacks the pollsters, likening them to children with crayons.

And Obama plunges on with his blame-game act. It's tired, unpresidential and ineffective, all the more so because he's banking on a bill of goods to prop himself up.

The most egregious example came when Obama said yesterday the $700 billion bank-bailout fund, or TARP, was "launched hastily under the last administration" and was "flawed."

Here are the facts. George Bush was in the White House, but Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Obama himself, as a senator, voted for the bailout in October 2008.

No one claims the bill was perfect, but there is no record --zero -- of Obama trying to fix it. Remember, it was John McCain who rushed back to Washington after the first version failed and tried to get involved to reshape it.

McCain flubbed the effort, but Obama made none. He only reluctantly joined a White House conference with McCain and Bush on the bailout after urging Congress "to step up to the plate and get this done."

He went on the Senate floor and said there wasn't time to fiddle with the bill before leaving the details to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said at the time, "No one knows what to do."

Fortunately, there were people who knew what to do. Timothy Geithner, then chairman of the New York Federal Reserve and now Obama's treasury secretary, was deeply involved with Bush's treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, in shaping the legislation that helped to avert a financial crash.

That 2008 vote released half the TARP money, with a second vote coming in January 2009, a week before Obama was inaugurated. He wanted the second installment of $350 billion, and most Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, voted to give it to him.

The record is clear: The $700 billion bailout was crafted on a bipartisan basis, with Obama's support and encouragement, and he has controlled most of the money. For him to now claim otherwise is disgraceful.

Of course, no Obama speech is complete without straw men bearing false choices, and yesterday's was no exception, as this passage shows:

"There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other. But this is a false choice."

It's not a false choice, given the context of Obama's plan to use $200 billion of the TARP money as a slush fund to help small businesses. That's not the deal he made in January.

Angry over how Paulson and Geithner used the first half, Congress set tighter restrictions on the money because it was borrowed and thus added to the deficit. The intent was to repay it as soon as possible, not to turn it into a revolving pot of discretionary spending for the White House.

Still, Obama was just getting warmed up. The earlier misleading claims were mere prelude to his Whopper of the Day: "One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility."

Does a single American believe that? Does he?

Stimulus saves 3 jobs and cost $6 million!

The thee jobs preserved must have been those of Mark Penn, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barak Obama.

A contract worth nearly $6 million in stimulus funds was awarded by the Obama adminstration to two firms run by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's pollster in 2008.

Federal records show that a contract worth $5.97 million, part of the $787 billion stimulus Congress passed this year, helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn.

Burson-Marsteller won the contract to work on a public-relations campaign to advertise the national switch from analog to digital television. Nearly $2.8 million of the contract was awarded through a subcontract to Penn's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, according to federal records.

Federal records also show that a former adviser to President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign received nearly $70,000 from that contract to help alert viewers in difficult-to-reach communities that their televisions would soon no longer receive broadcast signals.

The adviser, Alfredo J. Balsera, who heads a public-affairs firm based in Coral Gables, Fla., helped craft Obama’s Hispanic advertising message.

Republicans on Tuesday criticized the federal spending on the advertising project as a waste of taxpayer dollars. They noted that the advertising campaign took place on May 5, only 39 days before the digital television transition was scheduled (June 12).

GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) held a news conference Tuesday to blast 100 “wasteful” projects funded by the $787 billion economic stimulus package Congress passed earlier this year, concluding that at least $7 billion of the $217 billion spent through November was wasteful and mismanaged

The GOP senators highlighted the direction of the stimulus funds on the same day Obama outlined a new series of proposals for creating jobs that Republicans view as another stimulus measure. The proposals include tax cuts for small businesses, tax incentives for employers to hire new workers and infrastructure spending.

The need for additional measures has raised questions over the efficacy of the stimulus package passed earlier this year.

White House officials have said the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the stimulus helped to create 1.6 million jobs. White House aides also have noted that the national employment report for November showed dramatic improvement compared to early this year.

A White House spokeswoman on Tuesday responded to the GOP report by saying Coburn’s previous reports on stimulus spending have been filled with “false or misleading claims.”

“In the end, even if there are a few unwise projects, it is only a handful out of the over 50,000 projects that have been approved to date,” said Liz Oxhorn, a White House spokeswoman. “The real question here is whether Recovery Act critics will at long last acknowledge that well over 99 percent of the projects are sound, effective and working as promised.”

McCain and Coburn did not show any indication that they knew two Democratic political strategists received funding through the grant.

A review of federal records by The Hill revealed Penn and Balsera received money from the economic stimulus program.

Burson-Marsteller, which Penn heads as CEO worldwide, won the $5.97 million contract through Young & Rubicam. (Burson-Marsteller has been a part of Young & Rubicam Brands since 1979.)

Burson-Marsteller did not respond to two requests on Tuesday to discuss its contract with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

On Wednesday, after news of the contract attracted widespread attention on the Internet, Burston-Marsteller issued a statement defending its work. The firm said it spent only $4.36 million of the contract to complete the digital television advertising initiative. An FCC official confirmed that number.

"Burson-Marsteller, and the approved set of vendors, including its sister company Penn Schoen & Berland LLC, successfully completed the work with the FCC on time and under budget, the company said in its statement. "Burson-Marsteller received a total of $1,375,000 in professional fees to manage and support this time sensitive national and local effort with a large team of professionals. They disbursed the rest to firms around the country in local communities," the company said.

Burson-Marsteller said its sister company, Penn, Schoen & Berland, received only $142,000 in fees. The rest was spent on a $2.4 million media buy that went to newspapers and local radio stations around the country and $147,000 spent for the services of advertising production houses, according to Burson-Marsteller.

A contract award summary posted on Recovery.gov, the government website that tracks stimulus spending, states Burson-Marsteller was awarded a competitive contract by the FCC to help prepare “unready households for the DTV transition.”

The purpose of the campaign was to “bolster the reach, penetration and impact of the FCC’s DTV readiness messages in selected markets, specifically among the groups that had been determined to be the most at risk.”

Cassandra Andrade, a senior associate with Balsera Communications, said, “I can see where there’s concern, but the contract was strictly based on our merits. We’ve been working on multicultural outreach for many years.”

Andrade said her firm worked to contact Hispanic television viewers in Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Andrade noted that according to Nielsen, a media-research company, there was a sharp decline in the number of unready homes in the week leading up to the digital transition and that 97.5 percent of households were ready for the switch.

A spokesman for Penn, Schoen & Berland did not respond to a request for comment.

Penn received scrutiny during and after the 2008 presidential campaign for the role he played in Clinton’s unsuccessful White House bid. Some Clinton supporters questioned whether his service was worth the millions in fees he billed to the campaign.

Penn’s firm billed the campaign $5 million for polling and at least $8 million for sending out direct-mail pieces, according to Time magazine. Clinton’s campaign finally paid off the debt in July.

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the three jobs saved at Burson-Marsteller represented a poor value for taxpayers.

“It illustrates a very poor way to create jobs,” Kyl said.

Kyl said the appropriateness of Democratic strategists receiving funds “depends on whether they exerted some influence.”

The digital television advertising campaign ranked as No. 3 on the list of 100 projects that GOP senators on Tuesday highlighted as “pure waste” in the billions of stimulus funds spent this year.

At the top of the GOP list is a $5 million grant from the Department of Energy to create a geothermal energy system for the Oak Ridge City Center shopping mall in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The main problem with the project, say Republicans, is the fact the mall has been losing tenants for years and is mostly empty.

GOP senators also blasted a $1.57 million grant to Penn State University to search for fossils in Argentina and a $100,000 award to a liberal-leaning theater in Minnesota for socially conscious puppet shows.

Two million dollars in stimulus money went to build a replica railroad as a tourist attraction in Carson City, Nev.

A dinner cruise company based in Chicago received nearly $1 million in funds to combat terrorism.

Half a million dollars went to Arizona State University to study the genetic makeup of ants to determine distinctive roles in ant colonies; $450,000 went to the University of Arizona to study the division of labor in ant colonies.

The State University of New York at Buffalo won $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana. The National Institutes of Health got $219,000 in funds to study whether female college students are more likely to “hook up” after drinking alcohol.

The University of Hawaii collected $210,000 to study the learning patterns of honeybees, and $700,000 went to help crab fishermen in Oregon recover lost crab pots.

Update: The Hill initially reported on the basis of federal records that nearly $6 million in stimulus money was paid to Burson-Marsteller and Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates. Burson-Marsteller received a federal contract worth $5.97 million. As part of that contract, Penn, Schoen & Berland received a subcontract worth more than $2.7 million. A spokesman for Burson-Marsteller said only $4.36 million from the contract is scheduled to be paid out. Burson-Marsteller declined to respond to a request Tuesday to explain the details of its contract.

600,000. One million. Do I hear two million?

A few weeks ago the administration said it "saved or created" 600,000 jobs. Two weeks before that, it was 1 million jobs saved or created. Now, the poorly named "recovery act" created or saved up to 1.6 million jobs. This is great! All hail the great messiah he's taking us back from the brink of depression.

Of course the numbers are bogus, but nobody cares. The media sure as hell is not ever going to hold his feet to the fire, on this on ever.

But the one great thing about this is this administration has just taken ownership of this economy, complete ownership. So whatever happens from now on can be laid directly at obama's feet.

We just spend $1.6 Trillion on this economy it better save something.

But this part is unbelievable. We just had this job submit last week and now he's moving forward on that plan (whatever it is). It took Obama 90 some days after his generals asked for more troops to make a decision. It took all of the time to come up with a plan? But just one week after this "job submit" he's going to go spend unused TARP money (i.e. our tax money) on this hair-brained job creation plan?

So let me get this straight, it takes you 90 days (3 months) to decide what to do about the troops but only takes one week to decide to spend a Trillion dollars MORE?

But we can all rest easy because Obama absolutely assured us we will not have financial collapse. O, happy days are here again!

He also said that he has stopped the unemployment and the loss of job, he personally brought it down to a trickle. Now, we could stop there but that's not enough for the control freaks on Washington DC. We now need to create new jobs. Small business, he says, creates 65 percent of all new jobs in America. Not in bad times. In bad times they create as much as 80 percent of all jobs.

Let me ask you this: if the President said I am not going to raise the taxes on small businesses and I'm going to cut taxes here and here for small businesses, would any of you believe it? Every small business owner I talked to said no. There's no way.

You can't believe him. The uncertainty, it's what killed us in the great depression. It is why the rest of the world reads in their history books it was the depression but in American history books it was the great depression because it lasted longer here. Why? Because the government kept meddling and business couldn't function, because they never knew what the rules would be tomorrow. I can't hire new people because I don't trust that these people aren't going to kill me next year. And part of that is literal. I'm not convinced that they're not going to put me or anybody else out of business, through health care, through cap and trade, through whatever it is they decide to do, payroll taxes, Medicare, Medicaid. What are they going to do? I don't know. How about retroactive taxes? No, they would never do that right?

But they already did in California and New York. How about just forced IOU's? No. They would never do that. But again they're doing that in California. I mean, what else do they do? What else could they do? The list is longer on what they haven't done or what they're not considering. How do you expand? How do you hire? How do you do it?

Do you know that the labor secretary came out and said, they're wanting to now require all businesses to tell us if you're talking to anyone about unionizing or having any kind of meetings against unions or about unions. So, now I would be forced to report if I was having any talks with any attorneys or with my employees or anything regarding unions at all and I would need to report to the Federal Government.

Oh, that's going to help business. Seriously, that's what I need. I need another layer of big government to wade through. I need some union thug hanging around waiting to beat me up for daring to not want to unionize or gasp! talking to my employees about it.

What I need and want from my government is to be protected and defended from the robbers and killers around me. That is the principal duty of government. They need to protect my life, liberty, and property so I can do business. But now I need people to protect and defend me from the protectors and defenders.

I think I hear the distinct sound of a founding father rolling over in his grave!

MORE PROOF HARRY REID IS A CLUELESS MORON

Senator Harry Reid has had about enough of Republicans and their "let's take our time" attitude on health care reform. This morning on the Senate floor he railed against those pushing Democrats to forget their wholesale approach to fixing health care and urging small steps instead.

"You think you've heard these same excuses before? You're right," Reid said. "In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough' — about slavery. When women wanted to vote [they said] 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that — the day isn't quite right...'"

Republicans did not like:

"Having made this disgraceful statement on the floor of the United States Senate, Mr. Reid should immediately apologize on the Senate floor to his colleagues, to his constituents, and to the American people. If he is going to stand by these statements, the Democrats must immediately reconsider his fitness to lead them,” RNC Chairman Michael Steele said.

"They are so desperate that it is unbelievable. And for Senator Reid to go out this morning and make such an outlandish statement like he made, just is another indication of the desperation that the Democrats are showing and the pressure that they're feeling," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

Reid isn't backing down, though he left it to his spokesman to respond to critics. Presumably, his foot was still lodged in his mouth.

So it's republicans that want to bring back slavery? Let me give you a little history lesson. It was Republicans that got the civil rights bills passed (yes with the help of JFK) but most Democrats (mostly from the south) opposed the bill.

It was Democrats that fought to keep slavery and caused the split that in turn caused the civil war. It was Democrats that opposed the emancipation proclamation and the integration of blacks into American society after the civil war. It was Democrats that made up the KKK.

Also, let me give you one name; Robert Byrd!

Here is bird in 1944:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

Although he DID apologize later (1997) saying:

I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.

If this were a Republican that apology would NEVER be good enough!

So I say to the black community, look very closely at history because if you fail to learn form it, it WILL repeat itself. And given the Democratic party propensity to want to control/rule over the people and taking into account how you were treated by them, I would be very, very afraid!

A LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Harold Estes

Harold Estes (pictured above), a venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Snopes.com has confirmed the letter is real.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation" - " America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world, "America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

YOU SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER...

When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist, people said it didn't matter.

When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialist, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama, people said it didn't matter.

When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims, people said it didn't matter.

When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” people said it didn't matter.

When he admittedly, in his book, said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter.

When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport, people said it didn't matter.

When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, people said it doesn't matter.

When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, people said it didn't matter.

When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator", people said it didn't matter.

When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, people said it didn't matter.

When his voting record supported gun control, people said it didn't matter.

When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn't matter.

When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.

When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.

When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.

When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter.

When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn't matter.

When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.

When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.

When he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition people said it didn't matter.

When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues, people said it didn't matter.

When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.

When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.

When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.

When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home, people said it didn't matter.

When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.

When he started appointing "czars" (a communist term) that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communists, people said it didn't matter.

When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.

When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar who believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.

When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist, people said it didn't matter.

When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax, people said it doesn't matter.

When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.

When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.

When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn't matter.

When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.

When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend, people said it doesn't matter.

When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it doesn't matter.

When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it doesn't matter.

When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win, people said it didn't matter.

When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn't matter.

When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter.

When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc. people said it didn't matter.

When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn't matter.

When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn't matter.

When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn't matter.

When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people finally woke up........ but it was too late.

Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.

If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think the President of your choice is a socialist, but there are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.

Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.

Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, Iran; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC.

Navy SEALs Face Court Martial for Giving Most Wanted Terrorist a Fat Lip

This is so outrageous and unbelievable I first thought this was a joke but after researching this it's truns out to be sadly true. I am so mad I couldn't even write the story. Here it is as I found it. Thanks to The Powers that be for the story.

As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few of his murderous pals await civil trial in New York City, and subsequently their chance to bash the U.S. in open court, some of Americas bravest face being tried in a military court for giving a terrorist a… fat lip:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And for their trouble, three of the SEALs, members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Instead of roughing up a terrorist who had a role in murdering and mutilating at least four Americans, the SEALs should have converted to Islam and plotted to blow up buildings in NYC, then the Obama administration would have seen to it that they received civil trials with a jury of their peers and court-appointed attorneys.

Now the SEALs have to strap their families with the expense of paying for their own lawyers and face severe reprimands for removing this scumbag from circulation. Enemies of America now receive more privileges, rights and free legal assistance — not to mention benefit of the doubt — than our own soldiers.

This is some kind of parallel universe we’ve fallen into. Can we get out? If we’re going to insist on catching terrorists overseas and bringing them to the U.S. because we need the jobs, we’re not going to get out any time soon.

$300 million!

That was the price for the Democrats Healthcare bill. No not the total price for the bill itself ($1.5 Trillion and rising), no that is what it cost US to buy off Sen. Mary Landrieu's vote.

Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-Louisiana) vote in favor of Obamacare was purchased for $300 million on Saturday, giving Democrats the 60-vote supermajority that will, barring a miracle, pass health care reform that will possibly include a public option and abortion coverage.

So dispite a public backlash, poll after poll showing 6o%+ of Americans oppose his plan, our overlords passed it anyway.

The Demmo-Rats did not pass this in the light of day or allow the public to see the final version of the bill WITH the $300 million earmark, the public option, abortion coverage and so on. Nope, they pass it in the middle of the night on a Saturday with just barley 60 votes.

Here is how she explained the bribe:

"Our state is as poor as it was if not poorer, and I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation"

“I’m proud to have asked for it and I’m proud to have fought for it and I will continue to. That is not the reason I am moving the debate."

Sure, whatever it takes to help you sleep at night!

Landrieu went as far as loudly correcting lower estimates on how much the special earmark would bring her state. Early on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said brought her $100 million, but in fact, it was three times that.

But that is not the reason she is moving to debate. Sure, whatever.

Landrieu was the second-to-last hold-out on the bill, the last being Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who, like Landrieu, emphasized that she would not vote for the bill if it contained some version of the public option.

"I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a public option is included," said Lincoln.

But Democratic leaders will undoubtedly massage the public option provision to meet the requirements of these moderate Democrats, which could mean that the so-called "state opt-out" provision in the public option will be included. If that's the case, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over a third of states will simply decline to accept the public option, leaving less than 4 million Americans covered by it. That's at a cost of almost $3 trillion, according to some independent analysts.

There are several other noteworthy provisions that are included in both bills and are likely to be passed. First, "exchange marketplaces" will be introduced, with the possible government option as one of the plans Americans can pick from if they are self-employed, unemployed, uninsured, or part of a small business.

In the exchange marketplace, the government will dictate what are acceptable standards for coverage for all of the insurance plans.

So if the government is dictating what are acceptable standards for coverage I am sure they will not screw the "standards" in favor of the government. /Sarcasm off!

Second, language in the Senate bill still enables the coverage of abortion. Specifically, the bill states that within the exchange marketplace, one plan must offer abortion coverage and another plan must not. Analysts say that the inclusion of the much-heralded Stupak Amendment, ostensibly preventing the coverage of abortion in any forthcoming health care legislation, does nothing to reverse this. Dems breaking the rules, Shock! Gasp!

Third, exactly how the bill will be paid for is still in question. The Senate bill taxes gold-plated insurance companies, in addition to raising Medicare taxes for individuals making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000. The House bill simply adds income taxes on high-earning Americans. Other fees will probably imposed on insurance carriers, medical devices, cosmetic surgery and prescription drugs.

So, if this tax the rich plan goes into affect and the states "opt-out" is still there, watch the "rich" move to those states and the states who opt-in will be left with millions of "poor" on the government teet without any way of paying for it! Typical liberal/Democrat "solution" add more government instead of actually fixing the existing programs. Instead of taxing us to death for something we clearly do not want (unless you are AARP who offers healthcare, no I see no agenda here). Nope, don't fix it, let it hang out there dying while we pile on more government, more taxes, more regulation and control over our lives.

2010 is coming and the Democrat’s know it, so if you ever wonder why the "rush" now you know! And if you ever wondered how much a Democrat vote was worth, now you know that too, $300 million!

Pennsylvania thug, Union Leader, Criticized for Threatening Legal Action Over Boy Scout's Volunteerism

A Pennsylvania union leader has come under fire after threatening legal action against the city of Allentown for allowing a Boy Scout to voluntarily clear a walking path in a local park.

Nick Balzano, president of the Service Employees International Union's Allentown chapter, said last week that the union might file a grievance against the city for allowing 17-year-old Kevin Anderson to clear the hiking trail, instead of paying some of the 39 recently laid-off SEIU members to do the work.

Balzano's office did not return messages left by FoxNews.com, but the Morning Call quoted him as telling the city council that the union would be "looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails … There's to be no volunteers."

SEIU spokesman Matt Nerzig called Balzano's comments "completely unauthorized and insensitive" and said the union was "not at all" considering a grievance in this case.

"Not sure if it was out of context or just a bad moment, but we've got no intention of doing anything like that," Nerzig told FoxNews.com. "Not sure where he got the idea but he certainly doesn't have the authority to do so."

Anderson, a member of Boy Scouts Troop 301 of Center Valley, spent more than 200 hours creating the 1000-foot path in Kimmets Lock Park along with fellow scouts, friends and parents.

The junior at Southern Lehigh High School said he took on the project in an effort to earn an Eagle Scout badge and allow others to walk along the river while avoiding the busy road nearby.

In the process, he said, he and his team also transformed what was once a run-down section of the park into something residents and visitors can enjoy.

"The volunteers and I removed trash, many old tires and recyclables from this former illegal dump-site," Anderson told FoxNews.com.

"My trail will become a part of the 165-mile Delaware and Lehigh (D&L) Heritage corridor," he added.

Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski said Anderson's work was a "great service to the community."

"We would hope that the well-intentioned efforts of an Eagle Scout candidate would not be challenged by the union," he told the Morning Call.

In a letter written Tuesday to Balzano, U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania said the union official owes the teen an apology.

"I am astounded, that you would threaten to file a grievance against the City of Allentown because the administration wisely chooses to make volunteer opportunities available," Dent said. "Especially when this type of frivolous grievance could add to the tax burden of the citizens."

"An apology both to the scout involved and to the public would be appropriate," he added.

The SEIU has been the only Allentown union to suffer layoffs amid the ongoing economic crisis.

Anderson's troop leader Tony Martocci declined to comment for this story.

I wouldn't be holding my breath for an apology from these thugs. These are the same SEIU gansters the beat a man at a townhall meeting this past August whild he handed out flags and viciously attacked a diabetic for trying to enter a townhall meeting that was being stacked with SEIU plants to show great the "support" for the healthcare bill was.

A friend sent me this responce he found on another site. I would love to give this guy a big high-five, couldn't have said it any better...

The unions are upset because this kid did this huge project all by himself, quickly, efficiently and cost effectively.

The union would have had 35 guys out there, 29 of which stand around leaning on a shovel. They would take over 6 months to do "impact studies" and other bureaucratic nonsense, then start the actual work (careful using this word around union employees). After 6 months of work, with little accomplished, they would then go on strike demanding more pay and better equipment. After all is said and done, they would have spent 500K+ (billing @ $30 an hour) and taken 2-3 years to do the job. They would then have the local, liberal enclave declare the section of the trail the "peace trail" and blame something on GW Bush.

This kid did it for free in less than 260 hours and didn't ask for one shred of credit or recognition. Great kid, and the best of what our future can be.

The union? Tired, old, dinosaur still talking about labor like it's the 60's. Do nothing, contribute nothing bums.

Nick Ballsonyou is a coward and a gorilla. What heart full of integrity picking on a kid because your worthless collective didn't get to rip us off of some more tax dollars. Obama's America at its best......

HEALTHCARE BILL PASSES HOUSE. HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLET!

In a victory for President Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later -- and Obama issued a statement saying, "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year."

It's passage clears the way for the Senate to take up the legislation. Where it is almost cretin, Harry Reid will use the so called "Nuclear Option" to get it passed.

So if you love you current healthcare coverage be ready to kiss it good-bye!

With the "fines" for employers not offering or dropping their current coverage less than one quarter of the cost of the premiums of their current coverage it's a no brainier what will happen when this becomes law.

Less options, higher coverage, less access to healthcare due to long waits for care and less doctors to administer that care. That is not the worst part of this government take over of our healthcare industry and over one third of our economy. No, the worst part is the government will have total control over you entire life.

Don't think so. Well consider this; you smoke? Not under this bill. You will have to quit because that impacts the cost and you are getting government "free" healthcare so no more smoking. (kiss the jobs crated by the tobacco industry good-bye). Like McDonalds? Well that is bad for you so you can't do that anymore. (kiss those jobs good-bye as well). Drive a fancy sports care? Got to junk it (because you can't sell it because everyone is on the government doll now. Driving to fast is dangerous and you may hurt yourself so that is out. Sports? Nope! to dangerous you might hurt yourself (not to mention the "bad feelings" of the losers that can't be tolerated anymore).

I could go on and on but you get the picture. The government will have a say n just about every aspect of you life from birth to death. Speaking of death, lets hope granny doesn't need a hip replacement. She is old and lived a long life, she isn't worth it. Better to save that money for a younger (tax paying) person.

Speaking of taxes, get ready for a massive tax increase to pay for this. This thing cost $1.2 trillion, but consider the post office, Amtrak, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, cash for clunkers and on and on, how "well" the budgets are on those programs you sort of get the picture of how well the government is a controlling costs.

Cost is not an issue for our overlords, after all it's not their money. Government is not like a company, it does not have to turn a profit, it does not have a board to please. You are technically the board of directors of the government, but you can see how well they listen to us.

So in the end, better get rid of all those "unhealthy" things in your life and get ready to fork over, at last estimates, 8.5% of you income to taxes for this crap sandwich.

But at least the "poor" get it free. look on the bright side, in about a year you'll be "poor" too!

Fort victims had different reasons for enlisting

By AMY FORLITI, Associated Press

The 13 people killed when an Army psychiatrist allegedly opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, included several people who shared the same profession as the alleged shooter, a father of three with ties to Laos whose family had a history of military service, a civilian who had returned to work a week after suffering a heart attack, and a psychiatric nurse who arrived at Fort Hood a day before the shooting. Here is a look at some of the victims.

___

Michael Grant Cahill

Cahill, a 62-year-old physician assistant, suffered a heart attack two weeks ago and returned to work at the base as a civilian employee after taking just one week off for recovery, said his daughter Keely Vanacker.

"He survived that. He was getting back on track, and he gets killed by a gunman," Vanacker said, her words bare with shock and disbelief.

Cahill, of Cameron, Texas, helped treat soldiers returning from tours of duty or preparing for deployment. Often, Vanacker said, Cahill would walk young soldiers where they needed to go, just to make sure they got the right treatment.

"He loved his patients, and his patients loved him," said Vanacker, 33, the oldest of Cahill's three adult children. "He just felt his job was important."

Cahill, who was born in Spokane, Wash., had worked as a civilian contractor at Fort Hood for about four years, after jobs in rural health clinics and at Veterans Affairs hospitals. He and his wife, Joleen, had been married 37 years.

Vanacker described her father as a gregarious man and a voracious reader who could talk for hours about any subject.

The family's typical Thanksgiving dinners ended with board games and long conversations over the table, said Vanacker, whose voice often cracked with emotion as she remembered her father. "Now, who I am going to talk to?"

___

Maj. Libardo Eduardo Caraveo

Caraveo, 52, of Woodbridge, Va., arrived in the United States in his teens from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, knowing very little English said his son, also named Eduardo Caraveo.

He earned his doctorate in psychology from the University of Arizona and worked with bilingual special-needs students at Tucson-area schools before entering private practice.

His son told the Arizona Daily Star in Tucson that Caraveo had arrived at Fort Hood on Wednesday and was preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. Eduardo Caraveo spoke to the newspaper from his mother's Tucson home.

His father's Web site says he offered marriage seminars with a company based in Woodbridge, Va.

___

Staff Sgt. Justin M. DeCrow

DeCrow, 32, was helping train soldiers on how to help new veterans with paperwork and had felt safe on the Army post.

"He was on a base," his wife, Marikay DeCrow, said in a telephone interview from the couple's home in Evans, Ga. "They should be safe there. They should be safe."

In a statement Saturday, she said her husband's "infectious charm and wit always put others at ease."

His wife said she wanted everyone to know what a loving man he was. The couple have a 13-year-old daughter, Kylah.

"He was well loved by everyone," she said through sobs. "He was a loving father and husband and he will be missed by all."

The couple were high school sweethearts who married in 1996. Marikay DeCrow said her husband was first stationed at Fort Gordon in 2000, and she had hoped they would reunite at their home in nearby Evans when another post there opened up.

DeCrow was stationed in Korea from September 2008 to August. He left in September to go to Fort Hood.

His father, Daniel DeCrow, of Fulton, Ind., said he talked to his son last week to ask him how things were going at Fort Hood.

"As usual, the last words out of my mouth to him were that I was proud of him," he said. "That's what I said to him every time — that I loved him and I was proud of what he was doing. I can carry that around in my heart."

___

Capt. John Gaffaney

Gaffaney, 56, was a psychiatric nurse who worked for San Diego County, Calif., for more than 20 years and had arrived at Fort Hood the day before the shooting to prepare for a deployment to Iraq.

Gaffaney, who was born in Williston, N.D., had served in the Navy and later the California National Guard as a younger man, his family said. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he tried to sign up again for military service. Although the Army Reserves at first declined, he got the call about two years ago asking him to rejoin, said his close friend and co-worker Stephanie Powell.

"He wanted to help the boys in Iraq and Afghanistan deal with the trauma of what they were seeing," Powell said. "He was an honorable man. He just wanted to serve in any way he can."

His family described him as an avid baseball card collector and fan of the San Diego Padres who liked to read military novels and ride his Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

Gaffaney supervised a team of six social workers, including Powell, at the county's Adult Protective Services department. Ellen Schmeding, assistant deputy director for the county's Health and Human Services Agency, said Gaffaney was a strong leader.

He is survived by a wife and a son.

___

Spc. Frederick Greene

Greene, 29, of Mountain City, Tenn., was assigned to the 16th Signal Company, Fort Hood, Texas.

___

Spc. Jason Dean Hunt

Hunt, 22, of Frederick, Okla., went into the military after graduating from Tipton High School in 2005 and had gotten married just two months ago, his mother, Gale Hunt, said. He had served 3 1/2 years in the Army, including a stint in Iraq.

Gale Hunt said two uniformed soldiers came to her door late Thursday night to notify her of her son's death.

Hunt, known as J.D., was "just kind of a quiet boy and a good kid, very kind," said Kathy Gray, an administrative assistant at Tipton Schools.

His mother said he was family oriented.

"He didn't go in for hunting or sports," Gale Hunt said. "He was a very quiet boy who enjoyed video games."

He had re-enlisted for six years after serving his initial two-year assignment, she said. Jason Hunt was previously stationed at Fort Stewart in Georgia.

___

Sgt. Amy Krueger

Krueger, 29, of Kiel, Wis., joined the Army after the 2001 terrorist attacks and had vowed to take on Osama bin Laden, her mother, Jeri Krueger said.

Amy Krueger arrived at Fort Hood on Tuesday and was scheduled to be sent to Afghanistan in December, her mother told the Herald Times Reporter of Manitowoc.

Jeri Krueger recalled telling her daughter that she could not take on bin Laden by herself.

"Watch me," her daughter replied.

Kiel High School Principal Dario Talerico told The Associated Press that Krueger graduated from the school in 1998 and had spoken at least once to local elementary school students about her career.

"I just remember that Amy was a very good kid, who like most kids in a small town are just looking for what their next step in life was going to be and she chose the military," Talerico said. "Once she got into the military, she really connected with that kind of lifestyle and was really proud to serve her country."

___

Pfc. Aaron Thomas Nemelka

Nemelka, 19, of the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan, Utah, chose to join the Army instead of going on a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his uncle Christopher Nemelka said.

"As a person, Aaron was as soft and kind and as gentle as they come, a sweetheart," his uncle said. "What I loved about the kid was his independence of thought."

Aaron Nemelka was proud to serve and felt keenly the responsibility of representing his nation and his family, said another uncle, Michael Blades. Blades said several of Nemelka's relatives were in the military, including a grandfather who served in the Korean War and received a Purple Heart.

"He felt it was his duty to stand with them in defense of our country," Blades said.

Nemelka enjoyed soccer, bowling and snowboarding, and was an avid fan of the Utah Utes, he said.

The youngest of four children, Nemelka was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan in January, his family said in a statement. Nemelka had enlisted in the Army in October 2008, Utah National Guard Lt. Col. Lisa Olsen said.

Blades said Nemelka had a tremendous love for his family and a deep sense of duty.

"His mission is completed," Blades said, his voice breaking. "He now serves a higher calling in heaven."

___

Pfc. Michael Pearson

Pearson, 22, of the Chicago suburb of Bolingbrook, Ill., quit what he figured was a dead-end furniture company job to join the military about a year ago.

Pearson's mother, Sheryll Pearson, said the 2006 Bolingbrook High School graduate joined the military because he was eager to serve his country and broaden his horizons.

"He was the best son in the whole world," she said. "He was my best friend and I miss him."

His cousin, Mike Dostalek, showed reporters a poem Pearson wrote. "I look only to the future for wisdom. To rock back and forth in my wooden chair," the poem says.

At Pearson's family home Friday, a yellow ribbon was tied to a porch light and a sticker stamped with American flags on the front door read, "United we stand."

Neighbor Jessica Koerber, who was with Pearson's parents when they received word Thursday their son had died, described him as a man who clearly loved his family — someone who enjoyed horsing around with his nieces and nephews, and other times playing his guitar.

"That family lost their gem," she told the AP. "He was a great kid, a great guy. ... Mikey was one of a kind."

Sheryll Pearson said she hadn't seen her son for a year because he had been training. She told the Tribune that when she last talked to him on the phone two days ago, they had discussed how he would come home for Christmas.

___

Capt. Russell Seager

Seager, 51, of Racine, Wis., was a psychiatrist who joined the Army a few years ago because he wanted to help veterans returning to civilian life, said his uncle, Larry Seager of Mauston.

Larry Seager said Russell Seager's death left the family stunned, especially because the psychiatrist only wanted to help soldiers improve their mental health.

"It's unbelievable. He goes down there to help out soldiers and then he ... ," Seager said, his voice trailing off. "I still can't believe it."

___

Pvt. Francheska Velez

Velez, 21, of Chicago, was pregnant and preparing to return home. A friend of Velez's, Sasha Ramos, described her as a fun-loving person who wrote poetry and loved dancing.

"She was like my sister," Ramos, 21, said. "She was the most fun and happy person you could know. She never did anything wrong to anybody."

Family members said Velez had recently returned from deployment in Iraq and had sought a lifelong career in the Army.

"She was a very happy girl and sweet," said her father, Juan Guillermo Velez, his eyes red from crying. "She had the spirit of a child."

Ramos, who also served briefly in the military, couldn't reconcile that her friend was killed in this country just after leaving a war zone.

"It makes it a lot harder," she said. "This is not something a soldier expects — to have someone in our uniform go start shooting at us."

___

Lt. Col. Juanita Warman

Warman, 55, of Havre De Grace, Md., was a military physician assistant with two daughters and six grandchildren.

A half-sister, Kristina Rightweiser, said Warman was from a military family. Their father, who died in 2007, was a "career military man," Rightweiser served in the Air Force, and Rightweiser's brother is in the Coast Guard. The two women didn't grow up together, but reconnected after their father's death, Rightweiser said.

Warman "loved the Army and loved her family very much," she said in a message sent through Facebook.

Another sister, Margaret Yaggie of Roaring Branch in north-central Pennsylvania, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that Warman attended Pittsburgh Langley High School and put herself through school at the University of Pittsburgh. She said Warman spent most of her career in the military.

Warman at one point worked at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. She wrote an article about using surgery to treat obesity in adolescents. An article from 2007 listed her as working in the mental health division of the Perry Point Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Maryland and co-leading a health fair discussion on "Women Trauma and Returning Veterans."

___

Pfc. Kham Xiong

Xiong, 23, of St. Paul, Minn., was a father of three whose family had a history of military service.

Xiong's father, Chor Xiong, is a native of Laos who fought the Viet Cong alongside the CIA in 1972; Chor's father, Kham's grandfather, also fought with the CIA; and Kham's brother, Nelson, is a Marine serving in Afghanistan.

Xiong's father said he was "very mad." Through sniffles and tears, he said his son died for "no reason" and he has a hard time believing Kham is gone.

Kham Xiong was preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, and his sister Mee Xiong said the family would be able to understand if he would have died in battle.

"He didn't get to go overseas and do what he's supposed to do, and he's dead ... killed by our own people," Mee Xiong said.

Xiong was one of 11 siblings and came to the U.S. when he was just a toddler. He grew up in California, then moved to Minnesota with the family about 10 years ago, Chor Xiong said.

He was married and had three children ages 4, 2 and 10 months. His wife, Shoua, said they started dating in eighth grade, and the last time she saw her husband was Thursday morning at their Texas home.

She said he gave everyone a kiss and went to work. "It was an ordinary day," she said. After she heard about the shooting, she tried to call him, but never got an answer.

At 3 a.m. Friday, the doorbell rang.

"My heart dropped," she said. "I knew the reason they were here, but I asked them to tell me he was OK."

___

Associated Press writers Jessica Gresko in Washington, Angela K. Brown at Fort Hood, Texas, Kate Brumback in Atlanta, Deanna Martin in Indianapolis, Desiree Hunter in Montgomery, Ala., Elliot Spagat in San Diego, Thomas Watkins in Los Angeles, Monica Rohr in Houston, Jennifer Dobner in Salt Lake City, Richard Green in Oklahoma City, Caryn Rousseau in Bolingbrook, Ill., and Robert Imrie in Wausau, Wis., and Sophia Tareen, Michael Tarm and Amy Shafer in Chicago contributed to this report. Forliti contributed from St. Paul, Minn.

THE OBAMA STRATEGY IN A NUTSHELL

Ever wonder what the endgame to all these liberal programs is? Well consider the Cloward-Piven strategy:

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation. The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income."

COUNTDOWN TO THE END OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

I have always heard about this democracy countdown.. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1.from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6.from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage'

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19
Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's efinition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal aliens, and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, sit back and do nothing while your freedom is sold to the lowest bider, If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone.

Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

REID'S BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS

By DICK MORRIS

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had two problems. How would he get the healthcare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee without revealing the glaring potential fissures in his party over the public option on healthcare? And how could he lend a veneer of bipartisanship to a one-party bill?

He couldn't allow a vote on final passage out of the committee with a public option in the bill because he knew that he would lose Democrats and would have no GOP support. But real compromise was always out of the question. He wanted his public option. So he evolved a strategy where the only bill that would be voted on in committee would be one that did not have a public option, all the while planning for the final product to have one.

So he used the bait of a bill with no public option to hook moderate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and the gullible Republican Olympia Snowe (Maine).

When the bill emerged from Finance, by a lopsided 15-9 vote, it restored to healthcare reform the momentum that had stalled due to the public outrage so evident during the August recess.

Then the dexterous Reid capitalized on that momentum to put the public option back into the bill, reversing the commitment to compromise that allowed the bill to clear the committee in the first place.

This tactic of bait-and-switch offers a foretaste of what Reid will attempt on the Senate floor. He obviously hopes to replicate these tactics in getting the bill through the Senate.

As he did in the Finance Committee, Reid has opened his gambit on the Senate floor by embracing a public option. He does this for two reasons: First, he wants to send a signal to the House and Senate militants that his heart is in the right place and that the final bill will probably have a public option. Second, he needs to have room to compromise so the final Senate version attracts the moderates he needs. First he veers left in order to then swing right.

His next move is predictable. As he awaits House action, he stands firm in backing the public option. And as he nears the point of a Senate floor vote, he will pretend to modify that option in order to attract moderates and perhaps a few stray Republicans. As he and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) did in committee, he will truncate or even abandon the public option to win unanimous Democratic support (and perhaps one or two Republicans).

Then, in conference with the House, he will pull the old bait-and-switch tactic again, jettisoning the Senate bill and embracing a full-throated public option in the final version that will return to the Senate.

At that point, he hopes to use the momentum of House passage and the imprimatur of the conference committee to try to persuade senators, and the public, that it is this bill or no bill and that only a proposal with a robust public option can pass.

The point of this strategy is never to ask moderates to vote for a public option until the final vote after the conference committee. Let them build a record of having opposed the public option to sell back home. Let Reid show that he tried to compromise. And only put the final test to the moderate senators at the very last minute, when all the momentum is on the side of final passage.

If he succeeds, Reid gets a bill with his public option. But even if he fails and has to delete the public option at the last minute to get Senate support, he will still have gotten the healthcare bill through.

By making such a fuss over the public option, with the connivance of the liberals, he keeps the spotlight away from the Medicare cuts, the end of Medicare Advantage, the inevitable rationing of healthcare, the taxes on the uninsured and the sick and the cuts in medical reimbursement. A bill with all these provisions -- even without a public option -- is pernicious enough!

And these tactics can still produce a bill with a public option.

Will this tactic work? It all depends on the political environment outside Washington. If the bill is only marginally unpopular (the current 40-55), it will probably pass.

But if public opinion moves another five or so points (to, say, 35-60 against), then the moderates will probably refuse to cave in.

President Obama is planning to reduce the cost of medical care by, taxing it?

As more details of the health care bills emerge, the more appalling the "reform" seem to be. The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a broad provision taxing all manner of medical devices. This tax includes such "frivolous luxuries" as pacemakers, stents, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, automated wheelchairs, mechanized artificial limbs, replacement hips and knees, surgical gurneys, laparoscopic equipment, and the like.

The medical device industry had its day at the White House as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses, and the doctors. In turn, each group heard the White House request that they come up with voluntary cuts in their health care costs and support Obama's proposed changes in return for assurances that Congress would not impose deeper cuts (or, in the case of the doctors, that it would actually rescind cuts already scheduled under current statutes).

But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress. The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.

The legislation does not work like a sales or excise tax. Rather it follows the model of the punitive tobacco settlement imposed on cigarette companies in the 90s. It assesses an industry-wide payment which firms must make in proportion to their market share. It bars the them from passing along the cost of the assessment by charging more for certain basic products, but allows them to raise the price of others to raise the funds for the fee.

So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments. The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and to refuse to knuckle down to Administration pressure!

This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects. Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better, and less painful. To tax them makes no sense. Except in the world of sharp elbows and interest group politics that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.

Well, it does make sense to an administration that has already told those who would primarily use these devices to just hurry up and die to lower the cost and make more services available for the young, able bodied folks who pay the taxes but don't use the medical services they pay for.

Well folks, this is the "change" you voted for, enjoy!

The thin skinned White House takes on Fox News

Anita Dunn is the woman who was put in charge by Rahm to watch Fox News and pick apart every mis-spoken word and destroy it. That was her job: Seek and destroy, smear, take them out. It came out in the Washington Post on Thursday in the style section, who does a news story in the style section on Anita Dunn, the woman who is set to take out Fox News?

Well, if you've seen the video of her, she's very stylish so I quess that fits.

This is the "someone" in the White House, that's calling the Washington Post and saying, "I need to have this story in, it's a hatchet job on Fox News. Now of course they are not going to put it in the regular news section because the White House can't massage it. Because even bad journalists at the Washington Post have some standards.

So the post put it in there, it was a bad idea because what they said is that is she's a genius.

A genius? A genius that is going away very soon, so it was an easy choice for the White House to put her here becuase she's going away, so she was expendable. In the article it says that she was the only one that could afford the blows, because she was going away soon anyway. So in other words, we're going to go try to slug Fox and take them out but it doesn't matter anyway because she's going away. So if it doesn't work, she's going away. That was a message from the White House in the Washington Post.

Hang on. We're going to stop and read the Constitution. The message I'd like to hear says, "Hey, okay, okay, okay, we're going to stop hiring Marxist revolutionaries." That is the message I'd like to hear. Other than that I don't really give a flying crap. I'm about the truth.

What I listen to are the Watchdogs, who, at their own self peril, reached out and gave us a videotape of Anita Dunn giving a talk in Bethesda, Maryland at a Catholic high school giving a talk for graduating seniors. So this is a high school. Keep in mind the media has not responded to this. The White House has. The audio is below. But the response to Jake Tapper from ABC, he asked Anita Dunn, what about this Marxist Mao stuff that you did? Her answer was, oh, I was just kidding.

Read what she said for yourself, and you tell me if this sounds like she was kidding:

DUNN:

But the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kaishek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.

Oh I am! But wait there's more...

DUNN:

You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war.

Oh, oh! Now that I've got it in context that she was kidding, you are right, it is so funny.

I think I get it, she says, what I learned from Mao, the guy I think of most often, one of my political, my favorite political philosophers. She says you don't have to follow anothers path. so whatever you wnat is ok, if you want to shoot somebody in the head or thousands of people in the head to gain power, you could go ahead and do that!

But she was only "kidding" right? I totally get it.

So what is the punch line Ms. Dunn? Is the funny part when he set up gulags?

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Maybe the real gag is where he killed as many as 70 million people?

Yea, that's a real side splitter isn't it folks?

So this is Anita's favorite political philosophers that she thinks about all the time? The man who said he was willing to sacrifice 300 million Chinese? The same Mao that told the people, hey, if somebody's trying to commit suicide to get out of here, you go ahead. You don't stop them because, hey, with this kind of population, it's not like we can't spare a few!

So, Ms Dunn, I see the funny bits, I've always loved the comedy stylings of Mao Zedong. Oh, I saw him one time. This had to be back in the early Fifties at a laugh stop in Beijing. And he slayed like 3800 people!

Oh, the man was a commedy genius, did he ever slayed them!

Wow. She was kidding? That's her defense. She was kidding?

Well at least she has a defence. I'd like to know what the defense of the media is for not covering this. We had it yesterday. Besides Jake Tapper who tweeted about it, who tweeted about it.

Besides Jake Tapper the media didn't cover it because he actually is the only one out there asking real questions. And for those who never heard of him, he is the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News.

Jake Tapper is at least asking the questions about it. My question is where the hell is the ABC apparatus there? When is somebody just going to stand up and say who are these people in the administration?

I'd love to see the people who love George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson speek up. I keep finding them that love Mao, that love Marx, that love Chavez, that love Cuba. Is there anybody there that will take John Adams over Castro? I'd like to see them.

I mean, come on, I'm sure Rahm, or somebody in the White House should be able to dig up somebody that is going to say, "Oh, I... oh, I love John Adams." Really? I'm going to quiz you on them. You tell me why you love them. I'd like to see the passion for the founding fathers, off prompter. They can't do it. Barack Obama studied them, but he's also studied Marxism and Saul Alinsky.

look, I'm tired, you're tired, we're all tired. We're busy with our jobs and after a long day we come home and hear what's happening in our school with our kids. We hear about the the indoctrination videos. And then you watch the TV shows and you're like, you've got to be kidding me; what the hell's going on? Your bank account is dwindling away. I'm tired; you're tired. But we can't let any of these things pass, you've got to stop these people dead in their tracks because they're building framework. A Marxist, Maoist framework. And

I'm tired. And you're tired. But we've got to do it.

Then we hear the prsident say things like this:

"We need a mop with cleaning up When I’m busy, and Nancy’s busy, with a mop cleaning up somebody else’s mess, we don’t want somebody sitting back saying, ‘you’re not holding the mop the right way’ … ‘you’re not mopping fast enough’ … ‘that’s a socialist mop. Grab a mop; we need help."

That's a socialist talking. "We don't need people sitting around saying, that's a socialist mop." But the same day that he sends this message to the left, now you tell me if this is meaningless...

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

Let me tell you, those folks who are trying to stand in the way of progress, they're all, let me tell you: I'm just getting started. I don't quit. I'm not tired. I'm just getting started.

No, but I think it is important for those folks to understand I'm just ready to go. I am we're just going to keep on going.

I'm telling you. Look, I don't think I wouldn't have believed this a year ago because I wouldn't have, I wouldn't have thought twice about an Anita Dunn story in the Washington Post in the Style section. I didn't know how the media worked. I didn't know how the White House worked. I didn't know all of this stuff. You know, five years ago, I had no idea. Now, I got it.

And we are watching!

Throw Granny off the Respirator - In flu pandemic, Florida may have to ration treatment

Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases.

The plan, which would guide Florida hospitals on how to ration scarce medical care during a severe flu outbreak, also calls for doctors to remove patients with a poor prognosis from ventilators to treat those with better chances of survival. That decision would be made by each hospital.

So the rationing that would occur under Obamacare has started a bit early I guess. But I thought we had plenty of the H1N1 flue vaccine? Didn't Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius say that we MUST get our shots?

The flu causes severe respiratory illnesses in a small proportion of cases, and people who need ventilators and are deprived of them could die without the breathing help the machines provide.

So in order to help a younger, more deserving person we have to kick grandma off the ventilator? So much for liberal compassion!

The document, drawn up by a team from across Florida that included Orange County Health Director Dr. Kevin Sherin, addresses one of the most delicate issues in medicine: what to do if the number of severely ill people needing ventilators and other treatment dramatically exceeds what is available.

The goal, the plan says, is to focus care on patients whose lives could be saved and who would be most likely to function better if they were given whatever resources were available. It says those decisions are not to be made based on patients' perceived social worth or social role, but the plan calls for different rules for some populations.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Obama himself told us who he thinks is more deserving of treatment and it ain't grandma with 6 month to live. Or an 85 year old who need a hip replacement. Sorry you lived a long life, now go over in the corner and die quietly!

The list of conditions that disqualify hospital admission would be applied to most people only in the two most severe levels of a pandemic. However, they would be applied in the first level of a pandemic for people transferred to hospitals from "other institutional facilities" such as nursing homes and mental-health centers.

Hell, using that criteria, why not expand the list of crimes that are punishable by execution? That will certainly cut down on the burden these people have on society. Oh wait, I forgot we are talking about liberals here, a serial killer who rapped and murdered 15 children is more "deserving" than someone’s 85 year old grandmother! The serial killer certainly has more rights than a fetus does!

Florida’s draft guidelines call for hospitals to turn away anyone whose doctor has signed a “Do Not Resuscitate” order, which instructs rescuers not to revive a patient whose heartbeat or breathing stops.

A recent report from a panel of national experts convened by the Institute of Medicine urged states not to use DNR orders for this purpose, because they reflect preferences about end-of-life planning “more than an accurate estimate of survival.”

The Florida plan also calls for intensive care unit patients and those using ventilators to be reassessed after 48 to 72 hours.

Those whose chances of survival have significantly worsened would be taken off the machines or discharged from critical care to make way for others who may have a better chance of survival. If needed, they would be given palliative care to keep them comfortable.

In Winnipeg, Canada, all regional critical care beds were full at the peak of the outbreak last spring, and in Mexico, patients experienced long delays before being admitted to ICUs. Four died before being transferred from the emergency room.

But Thomas Frieden, commissioner of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said at a press conference last week:

The H1NI virus is much milder than the 1918 flu, but a small proportion of H1N1 patients, including some who have no risk factors and are young and healthy, develop severe breathing problems requiring mechanical ventilation and life support.

However, in many states, doctors, lawyers and ethicists are writing guidelines for hospitals with little or no engagement with the public, or with groups representing children, the elderly and the disabled.

For instance, when Utah tested a similar plan in late August, the drill revealed many difficulties that Florida clinicians and patients will be likely to encounter if the guidelines are approved.

Utah family physician Pete DeWeerd told ProPublica that he had to tell a mock patient’s mother that her seven year-old daughter, who had cerebral palsy and was suffering from the flu, would be turned away from the hospital and likely die.

So far, intensive care units in the U.S. haven’t been overwhelmed with people needing ventilators

So why draft such a report?

To prepare everyone for the healthcare disaster that is Obamacare that's why! Sarah Palin was bashed for suggesting the Healthcare bill would set up "Death Panels" well what the hell do you call this?

This is a scare tactic by this Administration who has already admitted they will never "let a good crisis go to waste." This is just another example how they will use this "emergency" to ram healthcare through without debate. It is using the hysteria of a POSSIBLE scenario to introduce policy that will be implemented in ways unimaginable. You don’t have to worry about “end of life” counseling for the elderly or quality care for handicapped. This policy eliminates those choices and gives the caregiver the right to make that assessment without input from the families or anyone else. There is a huge margin for misuse and abuse in this policy.

Interesting footnote is that the 4 people that died in the waiting room were in Canada who has socialized medicine and whose clinics are already rationing care. Read between the lines, this is the kind of care we would receive in the U.S. if the socialized medicine is instituted and if government healthcare rationing is allowed to be implemented. Remember, our lofty statesmen are exempt from these “benefits.

You Can't Say That, free speech on the brink...AGAIN!

At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.
by Anne Bayefsky

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.

For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."

The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.

Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1--adopted by consensus the following day--the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:

"The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased--for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.

Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution's adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that "human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions." The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that "the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media" goes "well beyond" existing international law and "the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms."

In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.

Free speech on the brink...

If Barack Obama's America looks anything like the efforts of his campaign, conservatives may have reason to fear for their right to freedom of expression.

Obama vs. Free Speech
By Michael Barone

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign emails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Kurtz had been researching Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago -- papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest emails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if . . . continue reading

I've said it dozens of times over the past few years: The left is always slouching towards totalitarianism. Given enough power, it will always end up there. (One needn't think of that statement as conjecture; one need only look at history to see its truth.)

Thus, it follows that the most left-wing potential president in U.S. history would be further down this inevitable chain than his predecessors.

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty

I am personally disgusted with all of the America is a rotten place crap!

First, get yourselves some true scientific knowledge, not this junk science of the PC world. Then wakeup and realize that without the USA and it's many interventions in this not so perfect world you and most of the lands you pontificate about would be TOTALLY ruled by genocidal murderers. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the carbon footprint, as they would have no human footprints.

Turn on the news anywhere on any channel, Darfur comes to mind, do you really think that those innocent people give a hoot in hell about your silly PC "green" stuff?

This country has been an amazing plus for the Earth for over 200 years, to deny that is nothing short of a complete lack of objectivity or brains on any level, You America Haters just keep being guilty for everything and the rest of us intelligent lucky glad to be born here Americans can continue to laugh at you.

So ask yourself, what the world would be like without the backdrop of American power and leadership over the past 200 years? I think, a bit like hell!

The Nobel Committee's Not-So Unanimous Selection of Obama

The Agence France Presse today reports that three of the Nobel Committee's five committee members had problems with awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama.

Nobel Committee Secretary Geir Lundestad, however, insists that the selection was unanimous.

This is doubtful, given that one of the members represents the free-market-oriented, unabashedly pro-Israel Progress Party. The party's leader, Siv Jensen, not only criticized the Nobel Committee's choice of Obama but called on its chairman, Thorbjoern Jaglund, to step down just one day after the committee's announcement. Although Jensen called for his resignation for a supposedly unrelated reason, the timing of her demand is interesting.

Lundestad wasn't being honest when he claimed "unanimous" vote as he neglected to mention that the Nobel Committee's selections are always "unanimous" -- even if such unanimity doesn't exist.

The Nobel Committee makes its decisions by "consensus" and the functionally-illiterate often use this interchangeably with "unanimous." Now you know why so many Norwegian parents are asking, "why can't Jens read?"

Just to make sure that no committee member challenges its "unanimous" claim, Nobel Committee rules prohibit them from speaking publicly about its proceedings.

Unanimous decision? It really depends on what your definition of "unamious" is.

Bill Clinton may not have received the Nobel Peace Prize, but it turns out the Nobel Committee has found another way to honor him.

Al Gore and the death of journalism

Filmmaker and journalist, Phelim McAleer asked the great global greening masiah a question and got his mic cut. Al Gore was speaking at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference, just the place, you would think, to ask a pertinent question, right? but Lord Gore did not want to address the errors in his book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth:

Skepticism is growing and downright unbelief is tipping Gore's "shifting momentum," of which he spoke about at Saturday's conference. On Saturday he was sharing his "optimism" about the movement, but others say that optimism is no longer shared by many:

"His optimism isn't shared by a lot of other folks," said Tim Wheeler, an environmental reporter for the Baltimore Sun. Gore may have been trying to push politicians to action, Wheeler added.

Wow! this coming from an environmental reporter.

In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.

Read more...

Peace Prize Winner Obama's No Champion of Human Rights

By Abraham Cooper

This year, Barack Obama hit a home run to start the political season as the first African-American elevated to the Oval Office -- a feat surpassing even the national impact of Jackie Robinson breaking major league baseball's color barrier in 1947. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee may not agree, but it's safe to say that Obama's rookie season -- so far at least -- has not been as good as Jackie's.

Conventional political scorecards on Obama's presidency show a mix of hits and errors on the make or break issues of the economy, health care, the Mideast including unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While most of the media is focused on Chicago's unsuccessful 2016 Olympics bid, the Administration's bigger failure may be the decision not to welcome his Holiness the Dalai Lama this week before Obama's upcoming face-to-face with China's President. After nine months in office-- and despite hopes he may eventually deliver on the promise of the Peace Prize -- it's time to ask our president to go to bat for global human rights.

Barack Obama may have received a mandate in November 2008 to withdraw militarily as soon as prudent from Iraq -- but there's no evidence that American voters expected or wanted him to beat a wholesale retreat on the human rights front. At a time when the fate of the Soviet dissidents and refuseniks hung in the balance, President Jimmy Carter did the right thing by moving human rights to the center of America's foreign policy agenda. President Ronald Reagan kept it there by challenging Prime Minister Gorbachev "to tear down the Wall" that, under President George Herbert Walker Bush, fell in a resounding triumph for America's leadership. And in their different ways, both President Clinton and President George W. Bush kept momentum behind America's global freedom agenda.

Obama gave Venezuela's "el presidente for life," Hugo Chavez, a smiling handshake, while the State Department has chosen to ignore the political prisoners in the Castro brothers' bastilles. Worse still, the Obama administration hardly uttered a peep encouraging the historic "Green Revolution" protesting Ahmadinejad's theft of the Iranian presidency. The highly-applauded remarks about democracy as a fundamental human right in Obama's Cairo speech have proven a throw-away line with no follow up. Burmese junta member Nyan Win has been given a visa to visit Washington as well as the U.N. General Assembly in New York, while human rights crusader Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest in Myanmar.

And now -- to cap its blindness and deafness to human rights -- the Obama White House has stiffed the Dalai Lama. For the first time since 1991, there will be no presidential welcome mat for Asia's human right's conscience -- at least not until after Obama meets with China's President Hu Jintao next month.

Back in Jackie Robinson's day, President Harry Truman won a surprise 1948 victory by containing the Soviet Union while continuing New Deal programs and even placing on the liberal wish list Obama's still-unfulfilled dream of national health insurance. The Marshall Plan and NATO Alliance were only part of Truman's foreign policy legacy. As President Obama tries to renew America's global franchise in the twenty-first century, he ought to ought to redouble our commitment to the third leg supporting Truman's winning global formula: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

Eleanor Roosevelt, the first chairwoman of the United Nation's Commission on Human Rights called it "the Magna Carta of all men everywhere" and later by Pope John Paul II "one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time," the Human Rights Declaration during a half century of both Democratic and Republican Administrations put the U.S. at the forefront of the struggle for tolerance and human decency everywhere. A muscular human rights agenda -- a secret weapon in the arsenal of every president since World War II -- will complement rather than contradict President Obama's goal of advancing America's interests abroad. Without such a commitment, the only applause Obama will be hearing is from the wrong dugout.

So when it comes to Human Rights, Obama is no Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson or even a Dalai Lama, hell he's not even a George Bush! But he sure looks a lot like Hugo Chavez!

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize. Proving the world does have a sense of humor, or at least knows a joke when it sees one!

President Barack Obama was just selected from over 205 nominees and his name was only submitted two weeks before the deadline (February 1). He was awarded this prize on account of his "diplomatic outreach" efforts "directed towards Muslim countries and the rest of the world" and his position on opposing nuclear proliferation". Obama has thus emphasized we are "citizens of the world".

In just nine months, President Obama “has restored multilateral diplomacy to its central position in international relations”. This means Americans are no longer going to be treated as #1 by world leaders anymore. What kind of prize will Obama get when Iran actually has a nuclear weapon(s) and the means to deliver it anywhere in the world they choose?

Obama's main constituency apparently lies outside the borders of the United States (overseas). No wonder U.S. residents and citizens consider President Obama to be out of the mainstream. He does not own guns or hunt! Obama has yet to make a difference here at home. Instead, Obama is now a world president. Kind of scary how fast and to the extent the world has embraced this guy, who only won by 53% of the popular vote. What about the other 47% of Americans, mainly hard working middle class folks? Out of luck until next November’s election, I would say. Perhaps self-screwed after that.

Now, we begin to see verification of how political these international bodies such as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and the U.N. have really become. They are all linked together with the various “elites” and the left wing of the Democratic Party (and Republican moderates), plus the media and academia, as well. (Most of America's secular institutions). I believe they have all sold out.

These secular institutions (domestic and foreign based) are ALL apparently internationalists, not nationalists. All our laws and all our protections afforded to individual American citizens and organizations are based on the concept of nationality and "natural rights", as the Constitution and Bill of Rights state. Treaties which unilaterally give away these rights and protections without consent of the people (Congress) weaken the nation state and reduce our birthrights. Using treaties to get around the Constitution is clearly an usurpation of power. How many more generations will enjoy the rest of our rights such as gun ownership in the future? Not many more, I am afraid. Does anyone really care to know their leaders have apparently sold them (and their children) all out? Look at all the new and existing debt. No doubt about it.

This is what is going on in regards to immigration enforcement and proposed reform (amnesty) and all the "diversity" hoopla we keep hearing about (Politically Correct). Right now, there is a draft treaty with Mexico in the Senate which would propose to mandate Social Security Benefits be paid to illegal immigrants. If it ever passes the Senate, then Congress would not have a say, just have to pay. The Constitution would be circumvented, the citizens (including legal immigrants) screwed. Social Security will be 10 Billion in the red for at least the next two years, much earlier than "forecasted". We cannot afford it. Taxes are going to go way up (European-style National Value Added Tax) in the next few years to pay for this grand, world vision.

You Lie vs You Die...Where's the Appology?

During Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress at the point when Obama said illegal aliens will not receive free health care, Rep. Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie!" The Democrats spun themselves into a tizzy. How dare someone be so rude. They immediately demanded an apology. Wilson complied. However, they continued to press the issue.

Now, along comes Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) who spoke from the House floor and said that the Republican health care plan was simply for Americans to "die quickly" if they get sick. Republicans were outraged and demanded an apology. As it turns out, Grayson's apology was even worse. Let's see how fast the Democrats rush to pass a resolution against him!

++ Read More

Defendants in ACORN Suit Could Be Protected by Constitution

By Ken Klukowski

The courts should vindicate the First Amendment rights of the reporters and media outlets involved in breaking the ACORN scandal wide open. And they should strike down the oppressive and absurd Maryland law that makes it a crime to record someone’s conversation without their knowledge.

ACORN and two of its workers caught on those now-famous tapes have sued those reporting on their chicanery for millions of dollars. The bad news is that the Maryland law at issue may well outlaw the taping and airing of that footage, but the good news is that the law should be declared unconstitutional in this case. And so the fight begins.

The intrepid duo of independent reporters James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, working undercover, caught ACORN workers in Baltimore and other locations across the country on tape, talking about these workers’ willingness to help the undercover pair engage in tax fraud, housing fraud, prostitution, and even smuggling in underage girls from abroad to be prostitutes in a brothel that would be obtained with ACORN’s help. The news Web site BigGovernment.com, launched by media innovator Andrew Breitbart, broke the story nationwide, and other media outlets quickly picked up on the story.

These tapes are so incriminating that they created a national backlash against ACORN, with the Congress voting overwhelmingly to terminate federal money to ACORN and the U.S. Census telling ACORN that the group would have no role in the 2010 census. It was a devastating and potentially fatal blow against ACORN, which is already under investigation in 19 states, where at least 30 ACORN workers have pleaded guilty to crimes.

But there’s a problem. Maryland has a shockingly-broad law that makes it a crime—a felony, if fact—to record someone’s conversation without their knowledge. It then makes it a separate crime to disclose that conversation to a third party if the person disclosing knew or had reason to know that the conversation was illegally recorded.

Although the Baltimore prosecutor hasn’t filed charges, ACORN and the two workers caught on tape advising the reporters on how to carry out the underage sexual exploitation scheme have had the audacity to sue the reporters and Breitbart.com. They can do this because § 10–410 of the same Maryland wiretapping law also gives private parties the right to personally sue those who record or disclose such conversations.

So ACORN and these two workers, instead of being mortified for engaging in these shameful and disgusting conversations, are suing those reporting on them to the tune of two million dollars.
This, despite the fact that in a desperate damage-control stunt, ACORN’s CEO Bertha Lewis recently praised the reporters for bringing these facts to light, so that ACORN could clean its house. The hypocrisy and audacity here are so profound that it shocks the conscience.

This Maryland statute is insane. But it’s not only ridiculous, it could also be unconstitutional as applied to these defendants.

Our Founding Fathers knew that America desperately needed a media that could freely report without fear, and for every person to freely be able to share important information with others and discuss matters of public importance. These concerns are even more important when they involve the actions of government, such as giving millions or even billions of dollars to an organization. (ACORN has received $53 million, and is eligible to get $8.5 billion of stimulus money.) Those concerns are at the heart of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free press.

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment confers special protections. One of these is the overbreadth doctrine: A law targeting certain types of speech violates the First Amendment if it also burdens a substantial amount of speech that should be constitutionally protected. The court declares the law “overbroad,” and then strikes it down.

There are far fewer Free Press Clause cases, but generally the courts extend and apply free speech doctrines to cover the media as well. If anything, the media has additional protection, as it exists to inform “We the People” and enables “We the People” aka us to hold government accountable, as well as private entities.

So the defendants here should make sure their legal team includes experts in First Amendment law, and immediately raise a First Amendment defense. Having raised a federal issue, they should then remove this case from Maryland state court to the federal district court in Maryland.

If they don’t prevail in district court, they must take it on appeal to the Fourth Circuit appeals court. And, if not successful there, should petition the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Laws must be obeyed in a nation under the rule of law. But such laws are null and void if they violate the Constitution. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press is essential in American society, serving the critical role of bringing newsworthy information to light for the American people. That’s exactly what happened in this ACORN scandal.

The courts should vindicate the First Amendment rights of these reporters and media outlets, and strike down this oppressive and absurd Maryland law. They’ll be protecting all of us in doing so.

SPLC alarm: ’Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters coalescing’

Web News WorldNetDaily

A private activist organization apparently is picking up where the federal government left off when the Department of Homeland Security issued its "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warning that returning veterans and people in a long list of other categories were potential terrorists.

Only the new warning, delivered recently to police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel across the country, is lumping those dedicated to the constitutional principles on which the nation was founded together with crazed killers.

That's right, if you attended the September 12, 2009 march on D.C. you are the same as an abortion clinic bomber or a cereal killer. Nice!

The fall 2009 "Intelligence Report" was issued recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center, where officials confirmed to WND it was published specifically for and delivered to law enforcement personnel across the nation. The SPLC did not respond to a WND request for other comment

But the article groups members of various organizations such as Oathkeepers – whose mainly military and law enforcement members pledge to uphold their constitutional duties, including the duty to question and refuse what appear to be illegitimate orders – with a man "said to be interested in joining a militia" who is accused of killing two deputies in Florida.

"The situation has many authorities worried," the report to police officers says. "Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters and a range of other activists of the radical right are cross-pollinating and may even be coalescing."

Garbage, says a supporter of the individual rights of gun ownership contained in the Second Amendment.

Mike Vanderboegh is with the Sipsey Street Irregulars, who describe themselves as among the 3 percent as in: "During the American revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3 percent of the colonists."

The SPLC "are conflation experts," he told WND. "They have a pot and they throw everyone in it in an attempt to tar the rest of us with the racists and terrorists they throw in there."

He said the largest number of active members of various "militias" are constitutionalists, libertarians and conservatives who simply fear the government’s swift advances toward federal ownership of banks and auto companies, intervention in personal rights such as health care and obstruction of constitutional provisions with gun regulations.

Only the minority are focused on conspiracy theories and the like, he said.

He said, for example, he was at the Oathkeepers April ceremony in Lexington, and the members with no significant exceptions were highly decorated and long-term serving military members and police. The group’s principles include statements they will uphold their oath to support the Constitution.

"What I saw there was quintessentially America," he said.

The warning from the SPLC echoes the alarmism from the earlier federal report. WND has posted the report online.

It warned of potential terrorism threats from those who:

•Oppose abortion

•Are returning veterans

•Oppose same-sex marriage

•Oppose restrictions on firearms

•Oppose lax immigration laws

•Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

•Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

•Are suspect of foreign regimes

•Fear Communist regimes

•Oppose a "one world" government

•Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

•Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano later apologized to veterans for including them in the list but not to other groups of people, not even when WND also reported later that the "extremism" report was confirmed to have been based on Internet "chatter."

Under the headline "Going Feral," the SPLC warning to police quotes personalities such as Fox News host Glenn Beck, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and actor Chuck Norris.

"It’s like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point ... of revolution. And by that, what I mean [is] an orderly revolution, where the people of this country wake up and get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch," the warning quoted Bachmann, R-Minn., saying.

Norris, in a WND column in March, wrote, "How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?"

Beck’s "threat" was, "If this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control … Americans … just won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up."

In a later column, Norris addressed the issue in a discussion of the 9/12 rally in Washington, where hundreds of thousands of people assembled to protest uncontrolled spending by government and its interference in individual lives.

"On Sept. 12, 2002, we sought to protect our nation against terrorists from without. Beginning on Sept. 12, 2009, we are seeking to protect our nation against enemies of our republic from within. Many of us are protesting the present political direction of Washington. Outrageous borrowing, excessive bailouts, massive spending, speedball stimulus plans … swings toward socialism are just a few of things that were protested that day. Of course, economics is far from America’s only problem, as large as it appears to loom," Norris wrote.

"I want to emphasize: this revolutionary movement is not solely an independent, Republican or Democrat fight. It represents patriots fed up against modernists who seek to overturn almost every principle and tenet laid down by our country’s founders at the inception of our republic. From the East Coast to the ’Left Coast,’ America seems to be moving further and further from its founders’ vision and government," he said.

A column by gun rights author David Codrea said, "SPLC’s Larry Keller asserts they are ’particularly worrisome.’ A fair question might be ’why’ or ’to whom?’ It’s not like they’re associated with anything other than patriotism, in spite of his attempts to insinuate racist ties."

Codrea said a militia was important enough for the Founding Fathers to declare them "necessary to the security of a free state."

The terror theme also was raised recently by Democrats. WND reported when an "Organizing for America" campaign document outlined a plan to have activists telephone their state’s senators Sept. 11 to demand a "public option," which critics say would lead to a government health-care monopoly.

Bobby Eberle, posting on a Republican Party site called The Loft, said Obama "and his team have no limits on what they will do or say in order to inject socialist views into the minds of Americans."

"They also have absolutely no respect or appreciation for the American way and the sacrifices Americans have made in order to stay free and to promote the American way of life across the globe. Just take the latest effort being pitched at BarackObama.com. Rather than remembering the Americans who lost their lives during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Obama’s political team wants you to make phone calls on 9/11 to fight back against ’Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists,’" Eberle wrote.

The OFA plan said, "All 50 states are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly reseizing power for their treacherous leaders."

Shortly after the "extremism" report was released, WND reported, the Department of Defense was describing protesters as "low-level terrorists."

WND later reported when the DoD eventually withdrew a training manual question that linked protesters across the U.S. to terrorism.

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit against Napolitano and the DHS on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Inc. and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

The lawsuit alleges the federal agency violated the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of the three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims DHS encouraged law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

INDOCTRINATION NATION!

No word on where or when this was shot but it was posted to YouTube just two days before The One’s speech to students, which makes me wonder if it was part of some school’s festivities for the screening. I think parents’ fears about their kids being politically indoctrinated are usually overblown, but I’m open to persuasion by compelling evidence — like, for example THIS:

If you do not find this repugnant you are an absolute moron. If this was done to help Bush the left would have gone out of their minds. I might say rightly so, but this is just another example of why parents need to be more involved with their kids education. If the parents agreed with this they need have their heads examined.

Obama's I’m Sorry for America tour continues at the U.N.

At the United Nations on Wednesday Obama took the opportunity to once again drop his pants and spread the preverbal cheeks for every dictator and despot to take his shot at the only superpower in the world.

His message was exactly what other nations want to hear, America has traded it's superpower status for the privilege of being "loved" by every dictator, murder and despot on earth. Oh, and he managed to alienate every friend we have with his attempts to carry favor with the likes of Putin, Chavez and our good friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who every knows he would stop build nukes if America just apologize one more time!

Obama wasted no time setting the tone for his U.N. address. In just the first paragraph, he said that as president of the United States he is "determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad." Boldly AND collectively? Can someone please tell me how those two can coexist? Building coalitions is nice... we did it for both wars. (I mention that for the liberals who like to forget.) But when it comes time for "bold" action and real leadership, it will be a cold day in Hell before you can build a "collective" consensus. Acting boldly means exerting real leadership. Acting collectively tells other nations, "don't worry... we're not going to do anything without your permission." That is not leadership.

Shortly after that statement, Obama echoed previous world speeches by highlighting what he thinks is wrong with America:

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.

At this time, do you think that he addressed the "misperceptions and misinformation" about America? Did he describe how America really is? No. Did he explain that America has not acted unilaterally? Of course not.

Here's what for U.N. Ambassador John Bolton had to say to National Review Online about the speech:

"It was a very naive, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama's foreign policy," says Bolton. "Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president's decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan."

When talking about Iraq, Obama did not mention how the Iraqi's are now free from an oppressive dictator and holding democratic elections. Instead, he simply said, "In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war." When talking about Afghanistan, he never mentioned the Taliban. Obama did, however, talk tough against one nation: Israel.

Here's Bolton's comment:

"The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending 'the occupation that began in 1967.' That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders," says Bolton. "Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don't have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future."

The Heritage Foundation had a number of their foreign policy experts weigh in on the speech. Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, had this to say:

"The other U.N. member states have to be beside themselves with glee. President Obama gave them virtually everything they could ask for without demanding anything in return that was not already on the agenda - and which they are prepared to twist to their advantage. He did not even ask them to support more accountability, transparency, or efficiency in the U.N. , which will be leading action on the very complex and expensive tasks that he is proposing.

The Obama administration probably thinks that its actions and this speech have purchased them the goodwill of U.N. member states, which will translate into support for U.S. policies. They are setting themselves up for disappointment. The political nature of the U.N. is combative and tough. Most member states consider these concessions their due. They will pocket them and stand firm to defend their interests. Cooperation will be on their terms, on issues they wish to pursue. The naiveté of the speech was staggering."

Now I would be remiss if I didn't mention the praise he received for his speech from those champions of free speech and democracy like Cuban dictator Fidel Castro who praised Obama for his efforts on "climate change." The news story notes that "the former Cuban leader on Wednesday called the American president's speech at the United Nations "brave" and said no other American head of state would have had the courage to make similar remarks."

I'm sure, if Bush had tried to make a "bold" speech like this the bile would have gotten stuck in his throat. Mine too!

Some may call this speech brave, but to give a speech that demeans and degrades America while failing to mention our great achievements on behalf or this ungrateful world, I have another word for it, Naive!

The Text of the speech van be found here.

Race Baiters Guilty Of Their Own Charges

By David Limbaugh

I'm sure New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and former President Jimmy Carter derive a great deal of self-satisfaction slandering other people with false charges of racism, but the damage they're doing to race relations is worse than any bona fide racist could dream of doing.

I ask you: Who is more likely racist, the person who sees race every time she turns around or the person who aspires toward colorblindness? Could those always pointing the accusatory finger be projecting their own discomfort with race?

Listen to how Maureen begins her snarky Sept. 12 column, in which she posited that Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst was driven by racism. She writes: "Surrounded by middle-aged white guys -- a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club -- Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"

I don't know whether "middle-aged white guys" and "their own men's club" flow more from some bitter feminist strain Dowd seems to possess or her liberal obsession with the superficial aspects of people's differences in pigment, but it is nonetheless bizarre.

Why is it that Dowd sees race in the politicians sitting beside Joe Wilson? And why is she compelled to make "white guys" a pejorative? In her world, to be white and male is to be guilty. Well, I reject the charge, thank you, and would appreciate a little due process before condemnation by such self-proclaimed open-minded liberals as Dowd.

One of the main sins of racism is its devaluation of the individual worth of a member of a racial group based on membership in that group. How ironic that in her thinking and writings Dowd commits the very sin she decries: condemning "middle-aged white guys" by virtue of their skin color and age.

Moving on from Dowd's indictment of Wilson's hapless, pasty colleagues flanking him in the House chamber, Dowd explains that she has "been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer ... had much to do with race. ... But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president ... convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it."

Oh? I wasn't aware that former President George W. Bush is black. For Dowd didn't have the same sensitivities toward the Democrats' "shocking disrespect for the office of the president" in their choral booing of President Bush in the House chamber. Perhaps that's because the left had already so demeaned President Bush through their daily slandering that there was no way to further disrespect him, House chamber or not. What would have been noteworthy is if they'd showed him or the office a modicum of respect.

As for Dowd's divination that "some people ... will never accept" a black president, we'll just have to assume she's projecting or engaging in wishful thinking -- the kind of thinking that leftists engage in about conservatives.

YOU my friend are a racists!

Oh, you never uttered a racists thing in your life? Doesn't matter. If you oppose Obama's policies YOU are a recists!

That was has been, err, former president Jimmy Carter who asserts that if ANYONE opposes ANY of the "ones" policies (or Democrats for that matter) you do it because of racisim.

Yes my friends the racist boogie man is out to get our beloved, caring, god-like president. Jimmy Carter says so.

Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote for shouting "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress last Wednesday.

The shout came after the president commented that illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Republicans expressed their disbelief with sounds of disapproval, punctuated by Wilson's outburst.

Tuesday's rebuke was a rare resolution of disapproval pushed through by Democrats who insisted that Wilson had violated basic rules of decorum and civility. Republicans characterized the measure as a witch hunt and Wilson, who had already apologized to Obama, insisted he owed the House no apology.

Wilson's spokesman was not immediately available for comment, but his eldest son defended his father.

"There is not a racist bone in my dad's body," said Alan Wilson, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general. "He doesn't even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won't comment on former President Carter, because I don't know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it's just not in him."

"It's unfortunate people make that jump. People can disagree -- and appropriately disagree -- on issues of substance, but when they make the jump to race it's absolutely ludicrous. My brothers and I were raised by our parents to respect everyone regardless of background or race."

South Carolina's former Democratic Party chairman said that he doesn't believe Wilson was motivated by racism, but said the outburst encouraged racist views.

"I think Joe's conduct was asinine, but I think it would be asinine no matter what the color of the president," said Dick Harpootlian, who has known Wilson for decades. "I don't think Joe's outburst was caused by President Obama being African-American. I think it was caused by no filter being between his brain and his mouth."

Harpootlian said he received scores of racial e-mails from outside South Carolina after he talked about the vote on FOX News.

"You have a bunch of folks out there looking for some comfort in their racial issues. They have a problem with an African-American president," he said. "But was he motivated by that? I don't think so. I respectfully disagree with President Carter, though it gives validity to racism."

Carter called Wilson's comment "dastardly" and an aftershock of racist views that have permeated American politics for decades.

"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state," he said. "And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."

Carters comments are a sad end to a sad and pathetic carreer. I for one will not miss this moron when he joins Kennedy!

ACORN needs to be investigated, leaders imprisoned and the organization dissolved

The scandal surrounding the left-wing activist organization ACORN has spread to New York, with employees at its Brooklyn office caught on video helping supposed ladies of the night get loans for their dream houses of ill repute.

Rather than reminding the women that prostitution is dangerous and illegal and advising them to change their careers, counselors at the social-services group shockingly offer suggestions on how they can launder their earnings.

And now busted again in NY...

If you think this is an "isolated" event and has no connection with the president, look how he addressed SEIU before taking office:

Look at this and tell me if a white person had said this would it THEN be racists?...

The above are HIS OWN WORDS, IN HIS OWN VOICE. So don't dare call me racists for showing you what he himself said!

Wilson vs. Obama -- Who Spoke The Truth?

"Congress shall make no law regarding..." Do those words sound familiar? They are, of course, familiar to any and all of us who have received even a cursory education in the founding documents of this nation. The Constitution of the United States of America is a document of enumerated rights and restrictions -- rights of the people and restrictions on government. It clearly spells out the rights of individuals, such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.

It also clearly spells out, in no uncertain terms, the restrictions on the federal government, including the 10th Amendment, which states that any authority not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people. Hence, the phrase "Congress shall make no law regarding..."

Read More

MSNBC is Whitewashing the Van Jones story

Consider this a sequel to their now infamous clip featuring the crazy white guy with a gun at the Obama town hall who, um, wasn’t white. Here too viewers are missing a key fact: Just what did the petition say that Jones signed? Shuster, very curiously, doesn’t seem to know, even though (a) he’s moderating a segment about it on a national news channel and (b) you can find it online with 30 seconds of Googling. Read more here.

I guess the tingle up his leg is distracting him again!

Criticizing Bush = Free Speech, Criticizing Obama = Hate Speech

He has been a voice in the wilderness for global warming realists, but now that he’s taking on other issues put forth by President Barack Obama, some on the left’s network, MSNBC, are suggesting Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is putting the president’s life at risk.

"Inhofe’s comments were very unfavorable toward the president’s policies. “I have never seen so many things happening at one time so disheartening to America.” Inhofe said, according to the World.

That remark and others including his thoughts on global warming and his disappointment in that he thinks Obama “is obsessed with turning terrorists loose in America” inspired an angry Schultz to dedicate the opening segment of his Sept. 3 MSNBC show to attacking Inhofe.

Schultz called Inhofe’s dissent and concern over the president’s policies “hatemongering.” The MSNBC and liberal radio host launched into a tirade about Inhofe and questioned his exercise of freedom of speech.

Source

It doesn't take much to get the Leftist mouth frothered up, does it?

Arrest warrants issued for 11 ACORN workers in Voter Fraud Probe.

Arrest warrants have been issued in Miami for 11 people suspected of falsifying information on hundreds of voter registration cards last year.

The FBI and state authorities were making arrests Wednesday. The workers being sought were hired to register voters by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

Prosecutors say they were first notified by ACORN about problems with workers in June 2008.

Republicans and conservative activists have accused ACORN of fraud in voter registration drives around the country. ACORN officials say the Florida case proves the organization is committed to an honest process.

The case involved nearly 900 fraudulent voter cards in the Homestead area.

Wonder when the Organizer-in-Chief will see his day before the grand jurry? Don't hold your breath!

Obama plans Indoctrination, err, education speech to chrildren September 8^th

I wasn't going to write anything on Obama's plan to speak to school children on September 8th but when i read the "suggested" questions and the lesson plan from the NEA I had to say something.

The suggested lesson plan calls on students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama following his address to students nationwide is troubling and establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief," education experts say. Some believe it may indoctrinate children to support him politically.

But the White House says the speech is merely "designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on Tuesday, which will be the first day of classes for many children across the country. The address, to be broadcast live on the White House's Web site, was announced in a letter to school principals last week by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Obama intends to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. Obama will also call for a "shared responsibility" among students, parents and educators to maximize learning potential.

Here is the first point where I must find fault. "Shared responsibility" is one of those socialists code phrases for collectivism. America was built on INDIVIDUAL responsibility. Do we have some responsibility to our communities, yes, the bible clearly says we do but this is up to the individual and should not be pushed on impressionable children by someone they are taught to listen to and respect, the president of the United States!

"The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard in school, to not drop out and to meet short-term goals like behaving in class, doing their homework and goals that parents and teachers alike can agree are noble," says Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman. "This isn't a policy speech. This is a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

Half true, when a politician gives a speech, it's by nature taken as political. This is no different than if a politician gives a speech about religion, it's implied that, since he speaks for the government, he is endorsing that particular religion for the government. If there is separation of church and state there should be separation of education and politics.

But here is where it gets a bit scary. In advance of the address, the Department of Education has offered educators "classroom activities" to coincide with Obama's message.

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."

What they can do to help the president? The goal of teachers and our "education" system is to educate without regard for political ideology, not indoctrinate impressionable young children into ANY political philosophy (this would be the same if an Republican president did this).

When Bush addressed school children on 9-11 he only read a story to them, he didn't ask them to "help" him pass his policies.

But the lesson plan goes on to instruct teachers to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

Again learning about the presidents of the past and what the office of president is all about is a proper roll for educators but to learn about the man in the office I feel strays into an area I am not comfortable with. Iraqi children were taught to "study" Saddam, so consider that.

During the speech, "teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful."

For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama's speeches on education for their students to contemplate -- and ask as questions such as "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"

Again it is not the job of the president to "challenge us" his job is clearly defined in the constitution under Article 2, Section 1. I don't see anything about the president "challenging" us. Leaders lead by example, those he leads should not have to be 'convinced' he is a good leader. Being a good leader is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren’t.

Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"

Obama announced his intention to deliver the address to students during an interview with Damon Weaver, a middle school student from Florida who gained a following of his own last year on the campaign trail for his interviews of high-profile figures.

The Department of Education is using the president's address to kick off a video contest titled, "I Am What I Learn," in which students are invited to submit videos of up to two minutes on the importance of education in achieving their dreams.

Unfortunately in today’s education system kids are what they are taught, not what they learn. They are not taught much about the three R's but they are sure taught how their "feelings" matter and that grades are unimportant, it's how you try. They are taught that there is no such thing as ultimate truth and of course that America is bad and we are no better than the worst rat infested dictator run third world toilet.

Critics say the lesson plans and the president's calls for a "supportive community" are troubling on many levels.

"In general, I don't think there's a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.

Among the concerns, McCluskey said, is the notion that students who do not support Obama or his educational policies will begin the school year "behind the eight ball," or somehow academically trailing their peers.

"It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that's very problematic," McCluskey said. "It's very concerning that you would do that."

Again, the "lesson plan" is designed to produce "group think." It is designed to make kids who may not agree with Obama, their teachers or other students that they are somehow wrong. It is designed to force children at a very impressionable age to think alike, particularly think like good little liberals!

The worst part is Parents of public school students would also have to pay for that "indoctrination," regardless of their political background, he said.

"That's the fundamental problem. They could easily be funding the indoctrination of their children."

Meanwhile, Patti Kinney, a former teacher and middle school principal with 33 years of teaching experience, said she found nothing wrong with the lesson plans.

"They're designed as a menu, so it doesn't mean you have to do everything," said Kinney, associate director for middle level services at the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "You have to pick and choose which will work best for your class."

And considering the political leaning of the NEA what do you think they will "choose" to teach?

Kinney said suggestions like asking students to recall "other historic moments" when the president spoke to the nation and to hone their listening skills by taking notes during the address are useful.

"You're asking them to listen to particular things and to take notes," she said. "That's a good teaching strategy to help students develop their listening skills."

But again what are they listening to? Parents have a right to know!

Obama administration recognizes Ahmadinejad as the “elected leader” of Iran, sort of

What was it the anointed One’s team used last year whenever someone on their side said something so stupid so mind-blowingly dumb that they had to "correct" it the next day?

Ah, that’s right. “Inartful.”

On Air Force One today, Gibbs told reporters that he wanted to “correct a little bit of what I said yesterday. I denoted that Mr. Ahmadinejad was the elected leader of Iran. I would say it’s not for me to pass judgment on. He’s been inaugurated, that’s a fact. Whether any election was fair, obviously the Iranian people still have questions about that and we’ll let them decide that. But I would simply say he’s been inaugurated and we know that is simply a fact.

Asked if the White House recognizes Ahmadinehad as the leader, elected fairly or not, Gibbs said it’s not “for us to denote his legitimacy, except to acknowledge the fact.”
Does the White House think the election was fair?

“That’s not for us to pass judgment on,” Gibbs said. “I think that’s for the Iranian people to decide, and obviously there are many that still have a lot of questions.”

Today in Kenya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Ahmadinejad, “we don’t always get to deal with the government that we want to…We take the reality that the person who was inaugurated today will be considered the president.”

Hillary's satement was W-A-A-Y slicker then Obama's paid mouthpiece. But of course there are those who will say, well Gibbs merely "misspoke" and he never really intended to say Ahmadinejad was fairly elected.

Funny, to me that was the point of the question does the administration think Ahmadinejad was fairly elected. But Gibbs kept rambling about Iranians “choosing their leadership” before capping the exchange with a concession to the fact that he’s the “elected leader.” If he can’t figure out a way to say “you play the hand you’re dealt” without stumbling into a gaffe so spectacular that it was even picked up by Iranian state media then he’s not cut out for this job. Exit question: If it was just a slip of the tongue that Gibbs never intended, why didn’t they issue a statement to correct the “mistake” immediately after he made it?

News flash Skippy, you don’t have the right to an opinion in your line of work. You job is to represent the guy in the White House and his agenda. It’s not for you to do anything more than that, although he can't seem to help himself, he is constantly interjecting his own opinions into the mix. Personally I think he should be fired, if not for making "off script" comments at least for complete incompetence.

Here is the exchange, decide for yourself

Update

Visibly angered by the slight, Mr Ahmadinejad struck a characteristically defiant note despite hundreds of protesters chanting “death to the dictator” almost within earshot.

“We heard that some of the western leaders have decided to recognise but not congratulate the new government,” Mr Ahmadinejad said in an acceptance speech before the Iranian parliament. “Well, no-one in Iran is waiting for your messages.”

“The Iranian nation neither values your scowls and threats, nor your smiles and greetings.”

Does mean were not firends anymore? DAm! I guess we will have to cancle the sleepover with Gadhafi in New Jersey.

Hold on, Wasn’t the Democrat party all up in arms with Bush dealing with "tyrants and dictators?" Now it's, “we don’t always get to deal with the governments we want to?”

What happened here? Where’s the outrage?

Whoops, forgot, Democrats are in power, the rules don't apply to them!

This used to be America!

" The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang.”
– Ayn Rand

A video of the town hall held earlier this week by Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., shows an unnamed protester standing on school grounds carrying a sign that read "Organizing for National Socialist Health Care – The Final Solution" and depicted Barack Obama in the Joker's makeup.

Officer Wesley Cheeks Jr. then told the protester that even though others were holding signs, his sign was unacceptable because of the depiction of Obama.

"But you got this with a picture," Cheeks said, explaining why the protester was being singled out from the others. "That's the difference. This has got a picture on it. That don't have a picture on it.

"Sir, leave the picture down," the officer said. "If you put the picture back up, you'll be charged with trespassing."

Video of the exchange can be seen below:

The protester continued the argument, wondering how his presence among hundreds of others at the town hall meeting could be deemed trespassing.

The officer answered, "If I told you once to take it down and you put it back up, I can charge you with whatever I want to charge you with."

The argument continued until the officer walked away.

"This used to be America," said the protester.

"It ain't no more, OK?" answered Cheeks.

Officer Cheeks is a member of the Fairfax County Public Schools' trained School Security Officer team. The school's security force, however, refused to comment on the story until its communications offices reopen on Monday.

Here is the offending sign...

ACLU: Spying for America's Enemies since 2001

Savor the silence of America's self-serving champions of privacy. For once, the American Civil Liberties Union has nothing bad to say about the latest case of secret domestic surveillance -- because it is the ACLU that committed the spying. Last week, The Washington Post reported on a new Justice Department inquiry into photographs of undercover CIA officials and other intelligence personnel taken by ACLU-sponsored researchers assisting the defense team of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Obama wants a powerful 'civilian defense force'

So just what would this look like? Well I have an idea...

Some may think this is funny or could never happen, but this can come to pass just as easily as it did in the movie, because as the emperor said "it's for the common good, for a safer and securer society." Also consider this, America is a Republic!

But the best line in the movie is when the senator says, "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause?"

Yes, that is exactly how liberty dies!

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 show the Senate bill could give the president a "kill switch" on the Internet and allow him to shut out private networks from online access.

More HERE!

Me, I wouldn't trust Obama with a potato gun let alone the power to "turn off" internet content HE doesn't like!

IMAGINING LIFE WITHOUT KENNEDY

This was an actual headline at MSNBC.com. Amazingly enough, this is not the most gushing tribute to the late senator from Massachusetts.

So…can I imagine life without Ted Kennedy?

As a matter of fact, I can. Tonight, I will go to bed and sleep. Tomorrow, I will wake up, consume a caffeinated beverage of some sort and go to work. After work, I will go back to my house, eat dinner, spend some time with my wife and daughters, then read and/or blog before going to bed. The next morning, the cycle will start again. As hard as it may seem for those at MSNBC to believe, the chances of me thinking of Ted Kennedy in that average day are roughly 0.0%.

This may come as a shock to those in the media engaged in the deification of Kennedy, but there are likely millions of us who manage to make it through our daily routines without thinking of Ted Kennedy.

So, life without Kennedy is going to look like…well, life.

And if you want to remember Ted they way I do, check HERE for some fond memories.

OBAMA, THE 'CHARMING' LIAR!

Apparently even the left is admitting that Obama is a liar -- but, to them he is a 'charming' liar. Wow. Listen to this clip which reveals the hypocrisy (with the video) of Obama's back door deal with Big Pharma. He shook hands with, literally, the same guy he used on the campaign trail as an example of all that is evil with big business. But hey, at least when he breaks promises, he's charming. That's gotta count for something, right?

MAXINE WATERS: YOU ARE A BUNCH OF NEANDERTHALS!

The Mad Max goodwill tour kicked off Saturday with a community chat about health care. Avoiding the temptation to one-up B-Frank's exchange about allegations that some the Obama administration's plans are reminiscent of a certain failed nation-state, the calm, cool collected one did take a little time to refer to some opponents of the public health care option as "neanderthals". Maxie really wants a public option, but she knows it's going to cost something. One guess who is going to pay for this plan. The answer comes 3:35 in.

Glenn Beck Boycott backfires

A left-wing group’s effort to intimidate corporate advertisers on Fox News’ Glenn Beck show appears to be backfiring as it triggers a wave of support from grass-roots fans rushing to defend the popular TV personality from the attacks.

Even before the liberal boycott of Glenn Beck began this summer, the best-selling author and TV host had became a ratings superstar, with his 5 p.m. cable news program pulling mega prime-time viewership numbers. Beck also had become a lightning rod for liberal groups who didn’t like his anti-Obama message and his staggeringly large audience.

Read more...

If you want proof this 'Anit-Glenn Beck' group are a bunch of hypocrites read THIS.

Who are the real thugs?

The dems consitantly call those aginst their health care "reform" Un-American, a mod and thugs.

Who are the real thugs?

Margarida Jorge, a former SEIU organizing director who now serves as national field director for the deep-pocketed, left-wing coalition Health Care for America Now, sent out a memo to her foot soldiers last week on how to counter Obamacare opponents. "You must bring enough people to drown them out and to cover all our bases so as to marginalize their disruptive tactics," she exhorted.

Local SEIU chapters echoed the call to brass knuckles. "It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices."

But drowning out our voices isn't enough. they have to silance us. How? By the only tactic left to the real thugs, violance and intimidation.

At town hall meetings in St. Louis and Tampa, Fla., last week, purple-shirted SEIU members engaged in physical confrontations with critics of the Democrats' health care takeover plans. Assault victim Kenneth Gladney, beaten while passing out "Don't Tread on Me" flags, is turning the tables on his SEIU assailants. The black conservative activist announced Tuesday that he's filing hate crime charges against the union goons in Missouri.

These were the first outbreaks of violence since the summer recess began. And that's no coincidence. SEIU President Andy Stern, the militant social worker turned union heavy, boasts of his organizing philosophy: "(W)e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power."

So it's policy at SEIU to use violance if their "arguments" don't work. Funny, isn't this the exact same "brown shirt" tactics they accuse the "right-wing hate mongers" of using? Just another example of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

Last April, SEIU bussed in hundreds of Purple Shirted thugs to a labor meeting in Detroit, where the union was battling a competitor over representation of nurses and health care workers in Ohio (Jimmy Hoffa, is that you?). The SEIU invaders ambushed the conference, sending one attendee to the emergency room with a head wound while wounding several others. The competing union filed a restraining order against the SEIU. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney responded, "There is no justification -- none -- for the violent attack orchestrated by SEIU." California Nurses Association Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro condemned the violence: "There is an ugly pattern here of physical abuse and tactics of intimidation that have no place in either our labor movement or a civilized society."

But Stern's shock troops didn't stop there, SEUI thugs have bullied other companies from private equity firms to Burger King to food management company Aramark to security provider Wackenhut Services, who have resisted SEIU's attempts to organizer their workers. The Purple People have organized aggressive protests and a "War on Greed" campaign to pound the employers into submission.

In Oakland, Stern and his Washington crew imposed a trusteeship on a 150,000-member local that had publicly opposed SEIU strong-arm tactics. D.C. headquarters accused the local -- known as SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (UHW West) -- of financial malpractice and misconduct. The local fought back, charging the Beltway union leaders with manufacturing the allegations to retaliate and to distract from Washington mismanagement. The UHW West president, Sal Rosselli, quit the SEIU executive board and formed a new union in February 2009, which declared: "We don't trust them with our contracts, we don't trust them with our dues -- we just don't trust them."

Accordingly, SEIU-endorsed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius openly praised the union's drowning-out campaign against Obamacare critics in a teleconference call last week. She urged her "brothers and sisters" to keep doing what they were doing. SEIU health care chair Dennis Rivera of New York then railed against the "radical fringe" of "right-wingers," whom he accused of "terrorist tactics."

Team Obama and the Democrats -- who together received more than $60 million in SEIU independent expenditure funds -- remain mum about SEIU thuggery. Obama, after all, promised the SEIU on the campaign trail: "We look after each other!"

This guy is nuts but he makes a few good points. The major one is we are all mad as hell and are not going to take this much longer.

American Revolution II, better than the original, coming to a neighborhood near you. Soon!

I don't believe the "he's not an American" crap but if you take everything Obama and the Democrats have done, the picture becomes very clean and very disturbing.

Obama's Health Care WhoppersObama's Healthcare Whoppers

By Peter Ferrara

If you take the partisan blinders off, sometimes it gets downright scary.

At his town hall meeting on health care on Saturday in Colorado, President Obama told the audience:

"I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening -- if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan."

That is, unless your health care plan is Medicare Advantage -- the private insurance options that almost one-fourth of seniors have chosen for their coverage under Medicare. Republicans enacted this choice for seniors, and many, many seniors have chosen one of these private insurance options because they get better benefits from it than from standard Medicare.

President Obama's health plan targets these Medicare Advantage private plans for $177 billion in cuts in what he misleadingly calls "subsidies"and "sweetheart deals for insurance companies that don't make anybody any healthier."At a minimum, these cuts will force these plans to cut back on the benefits they provide to seniors. Or the Medicare Advantage plans may just go out of business altogether, dumping all the seniors who have made that choice because they think they are getting a better deal from those plans.

In these town halls, President Obama has repeatedly denied that his health overhaul scheme includes any cuts in Medicare. But besides slashing Medicare Advantage, the Congressional bills cut over $300 billion more from the program, which the Congressional Budget Office has scored. When arguing that his health overhaul is paid for, he wants credit for these cuts. But when challenged, he wants to deny before the whole country -- in broad daylight -- that he is doing it. I can't recall any precedent for such a presidential disconnect from reality.

But it continues. He keeps saying in these town halls that his health overhaul scheme will reduce the deficit. But CBO, which is now in complete control of the Democrat Congressional majorities, says just the opposite, that the plan will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions. But that hasn't stopped Obama from barnstorming the country openly denying this reality.

And it goes from bad to worse. In Colorado on Saturday, President Obama suggested that his health overhaul scheme would "bend the cost curve,"reducing "health care inflation"so much that the enormous long term deficit of Medicare (unfunded liability: $89 trillion) would be eliminated! Otherwise, he said, "We'll either have to cut Medicare, in which case seniors then will bear the brunt of it, or we'll have to raise taxes, which nobody likes."

But the CBO has not confirmed anything like that. What it has said, again, is just the opposite, that Obama's health plans will not reduce costs, but, rather, will increase federal spending by close to a trillion dollars.

Of course, President Obama has also repeatedly cited AARP as endorsing his health overhaul scheme although the group has spoken out, on national television, denying that.

Honestly, if you take the partisan blinders off, sometimes it gets downright scary. President Obama suggested in Colorado that "about 100,000 people die every year from preventable diseases and illnesses in hospitals,"and that "50 percent, 75 percent"of these preventable deaths could be eliminated by a doctor's protocol of "washing your hands, a lot of just basic stuff that costs no moneyÃƒÆ’Ã

WOW Dr Obama, what an insight. Boy, all that medical training and research to find and cure diseases wasted, just wash your hands. Man what a genius!

President Obama, you really are God. You are so brilliant that you can save 50,000 to 75,000 lives a year by just telling those stupid doctors to wash their hands and do a lot of just basic stuff like that? -- Actually, the washing your hands protocol was adopted in the mid-1800s when germs were discovered.

A counter to the Obama health care fairy tales is the study for the Heartland Institute, which shows exactly how the Obama health plan will ration and deny you care, will greatly restrict your freedom of choice and control over your health care, will increase health costs rather than reduce them, will increase federal spending, deficits, and debt, and will leave America with uncompetitive tax rates in the global economy.

The $60 Trillion Dollar man

The GAO has released the Financial Report of the United States and it isn't pretty.

Since the GAO has gone into hiding from Emperor Zero and has not give us a total number the way David Walker did it in the past we are left using his prior method of adding the Balance Sheet Net position.

By adding all the Unfunded liabilities including Social Security and Medicare the total government liabilities, (the same way Chris Martenson would add up the total in his summaries in 2006 an 2007) that number is...

$60 trillion dollars.

One thing to note is the operating costs of the Federal Government tripled in the last year. Net operating costs went from 275.5 billion last year to 1009.1 billion this year, most of that increase went to the ill conceived Bush "stimulus."

Unfortunately Obama seems to figure if $455 billion will fix it, $1 trillion should fix the hell out of it.

"As in previous years, Treasury did not have adequate systems and personnel to address the magnitude of the fiscal year 2008 financial reporting challenges it faced, such as control deficiencies in its process for preparing the consolidated financial
statements noted above...there were not enough personnel with specialized financial reporting experience to help ensure reliable financial reporting by the reporting date."

But let's break the debt down:

Treasury rates for 12-1-08
1 mo // 3 mo // 6 mo // 1 yr // 2 yr // 3 yr // 5 yr // 7 yr // 10 yr // 20 yr // 30 yr
0.09 // 0.07 // 0.44 // 0.81 // 0.90 // 1.16 // 1.71 // 2.13 // 2.72 // 3.51 // 3.22

Let's take an average number and say the debt is recycled every 2 to 3 years at 1% (until people stop loaning to the treasury).

1% of $60 trillion is an interest cost per year of $600 billion.

GDP is expected to be $14trillion and grow 3-4% per year. The question then becomes: how much of that GDP can be taxed? Let's guess that 25% of it is stolen by the government. This gives them $3.5 trillion to fund the show. If these numbers are anywhere near close, the politicians and bankers will think they have plenty of pork money left.

But let's play with the numbers a bit. Let's say that 1/2 of the treasuries are 10-year notes at 2%. And let's watch the debt continue to grow another $10trillion by mid 2009. And let's watch the economy tank as GDP falls 10% (since 70% of GDP is consumption). Now where are we?

GDP= $12.6 trillion; taxes at 25% = $3.15 trillion;

And debt service on $70 trillion is: (35t x 2%) + (35tx1%) = $1.05 trillion

This is still manageable. We don't default here. But, if the economy continues to go down and debt continues to rise, we will soon reach a crossover point. My numbers are wild harry guesses. There are so many complications to this that we could reach a crossover point as early as 2009, or as late as 2012. The way our debt is ramping up exponentially, you can't get a much steeper slope.

If anyone has better ideas on these numbers, we can make better guesses. How many people have to pay their taxes to reach $1 trillion? If the average income of taxpayers is $60k and at 10% tax (not counting hidden and layers of taxes), it would take 166 million taxpayers just to pay that interest.

That sounds pretty close to the tipping point. Corporations and high-earners are shouldering most of that load.

How can this not end badly...........I mean REALLY BADLY???

All the data above was compiled from various sources including government documents and various internet sources and is in no way meant to be scientific but all information has been verified to the best of our ability and is presented in an accurate and honest way.

Obamacare as explained by Monty Python

ObamaCare features mandatory “end of life counseling” for seniors every five years. This is a very complex concept and many people wonder exactly what it means.

It’s all explained in this clip from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.”

Pelosi was for disruptions before she was aginst them

Listen to what princess Pelosi had to say in 2006 while speaking to a group of anti-war protestors in San Fransisco. My how the winds change.

Issa Concludes ACORN Is a Racket

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, deservedly has received enormous amounts of bad press over the past couple years. The New Orleans-based nonprofit network of radical activists, with hundreds of affiliates in more than 40 states, has been at the center of investigations into voter registration fraud, unauthorized use of taxpayer funds for lobbying and other forms of partisan politics, phony tax filings, and an embezzlement scandal that cost its founder and chief organizer his job a little over a year ago. Now a key Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives has weighed in, releasing last week the results of a full-length probe by committee staffers. The report concludes that ACORN fits the definition of a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO). That's especially ominous in light of the group's imminent huge boost in federal subsidies in the Obama era.

On Thursday, July 23, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released an 88-page report, "Is ACORN Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?" The answer to this question: affirmative. Issa pulled no punches. "It is outrageous that ACORN will be rewarded for its criminal acts by taxpayer money in the stimulus and is being asked to help with the U.S. census," he remarked at a news conference. "This report shines a light on clear criminal conduct and it is abundantly clear that they (ACORN and its affiliates) cannot and should not be trusted with taxpayer dollars." Issa amplified his view as a guest on Fox News Channel's "Glenn Beck Show," denouncing the group's "pattern of loose financial accounting and no firewalls."

ACORN's extensive taxpayer subsidies alone merit a high degree of scrutiny. Over the last 15 years, the federal government has provided $53 million to this organization and its complex network of affiliates. And this money pales before what's coming down the pike. As the committee report notes, ACORN is eligible to receive up to $8.5 billion in federal stimulus funds in the coming fiscal year, especially through programs of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In other words, it's not hard to see why many of the group's critics see ACORN as an adjunct of the Obama administration. President Obama, after all, himself began as a community organizer.

Yet even if ACORN had never received a penny of government money, it should be investigated anyway. That's because in organizational structure and operating style, ACORN strongly resembles a racketeering enterprise. The opening three paragraphs of the report's executive summary set the tone:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.

Emerging accounts of widespread deceit and corruption raise the need for a criminal investigation of ACORN. By intentionally blurring the legal distinctions between 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt entities, ACORN diverts taxpayer and tax-exempt monies into partisan political activities. Since 1994, more than $53 million in federal funds have been pumped into ACORN, and under the Obama administration, ACORN stands to receive a whopping $8.5 billion in available stimulus funds.

Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act.

The report presents five general areas under which the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now could be prosecuted under existing federal RICO statutes. National Legal and Policy Center has published several stories on these very issues, especially in Union Corruption Update, since ACORN is the sponsor of Locals 100 and 880 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

First, argues the House committee report, ACORN management has engaged in various cover-ups. Investigators pored over documents revealing that the nonprofit network has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self-dealing, and abetted the embezzlement of nearly $950,000 in funds a decade ago by then-CFO Dale Rathke, brother of founder-chief organizer Wade Rathke. ACORN executives during 1999-2000, when the alleged offenses took place, were fully aware Dale Rathke had stolen the money and reported it as a business transaction to another organization, Citizens Consulting, Inc. That CCI shares the same address as ACORN headquarters - 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue in New Orleans - alone should be a tipoff something was crooked. Such are the consequences of a lack of internal controls.

Second, states the report, ACORN has run a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce. The organization has used charitable donations to recover embezzlement-related losses; commingled accounts of legally separate affiliates; and intentionally used voter registration drives to sign up ineligible or fictitious voters. As for that last one, nearly 70 ACORN low-level employees have been convicted thus far in a dozen states for voter registration fraud, even though none of ACORN's officials or directors have been indicted. Over one-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008 were invalid.

Third, ACORN has been engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States government by using taxpayer funds for overtly political activities. Committee investigators discovered documents revealing ACORN and certain affiliates to have used funds from federally-subsidized accounts to elect Democratic candidates in close races around the country. Recipients of ACORN expenditures include the political campaigns of President Barack Obama, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. In some cases, such as that of Blagojevich, leaders of ACORN affiliates openly took credit for victory. And far from being isolated examples, these were part of a systematic ACORN program to sway the election process through "Chicago-style political manipulation and back-room schemes."

Fourth, committee investigators have substantial evidence that ACORN filed false documentation to government agencies such as the IRS and the Department of Labor. Many of these bogus reports relate to the attempt by SEIU Local 100, whose main organizer is Wade Rathke, to conceal his brother's embezzlement. Additionally, ACORN violated overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act so it could continue to exploit low-income workers - ironic, since ACORN came into being back in 1970 in part to combat labor exploitation.

Fifth, said the committee, ACORN "plundered employee benefits and violated fiduciary responsibilities" spelled out in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The group relieved corporate debts through banned loans to a related party. ACORN leaders concealed information about prohibited financial transactions from its board in violation of its charter. In other words, certain ACORN officials knowingly have enriched themselves at the expense of intended beneficiaries.

ACORN has spun itself off into hundreds of organizations as a way to maintain a veil of secrecy. The most effective way to lift off that veil is investigation and prosecution through federal RICO legislation. The House Oversight Committee believes that ACORN's offenses, taken as a whole, constitute a pattern of racketeering. Citing the Eight Circuit Court's decision in HOK Sport Inc. v. FC Des Moines L.C., the committee argued that ACORN's corporate structure is a shell that serves no legitimate business purpose and whose primarily purpose is to perpetuate fraud. "Once the corporate veil is pierced," the report said, "officers and directors can be found liable as alter egos of the nonprofit corporation."

ACORN already has been the target of FBI and various state investigations. But RICO may hold the key to dismantling and reforming the nonprofit behemoth. Reform won't be easy. Top members of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate are subject to high pressure from the Obama administration in the event they seek to go forward. Even longtime ACORN supporter House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., who this past March surprised many by calling for additional hearings on ACORN, since has backed off. And the Obama White House can lead hard on the FBI, the IRS, the Federal Election Commission and other federal agencies as well. Obama began his career in Chicago, immersing himself in the art of transforming economic desires into political grievances. He may not formally have been a member of ACORN, but he knows their language. Fortunately, though in a different way, so do certain members and staffers of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Home of the Obama Watch Blog

Main Menu

Internal links

Story Links

Articles

Resources

For the Kids...

Links to our Friends

Mistrust of census process by some people is misplaced, officials say

HARRY REID: "ONLY" 36,000 JOBS LOST, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD!

OBAMA: 3.4% PROFIT IS "OBSCENE"

Oba-Kabuki: A Box-Office Bomb

VALERIE JARETT CHANNELS FOREST GUMP

Arianna Huffington: Free Speech Applies Only to Liberals

Dems Near Plan To Pass Health Care Bill

Grassroots Activism, Left-wing style

The Global Warming Train wreck

Bye-Bayh

The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010

Obama the Hungry...

REUTERS PULLS MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKE Story

Explaining the Tea Party Movement and the Bewilderment of the Political Class

DEMOCRATS SPIN THE UNSPINNABLE

STATE OF THE UNION FACT CHECK

Obama to create a ‘Debt Reduction Commission’ What could go wrong?

Breaking news: Barack Obama is human.

Coakley Would Be Quayled -- If She Were a Republican

Evil, Capitalistic, Bigoted America Comes to Haiti’s Assistance

RACE POLITICS AT IT'S BEST!

Fannie’s Christmas Eve Surprise

DEMOCRATS RESORT TO BRIBERY AND THREATS TO PASS OBAMACARE

TSA subpoenas bloggers, demands names of sources

PELOSI AND REID HAVE ONE LESS STOOGE

CASH FOR CLOTURE

President Obama seems to have run out of both charm and ideas

Stimulus saves 3 jobs and cost $6 million!

600,000. One million. Do I hear two million?

MORE PROOF HARRY REID IS A CLUELESS MORON

A LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

YOU SAID IT DIDN'T MATTER...

Navy SEALs Face Court Martial for Giving Most Wanted Terrorist a Fat Lip

$300 million!

Pennsylvania thug, Union Leader, Criticized for Threatening Legal Action Over Boy Scout's Volunteerism

HEALTHCARE BILL PASSES HOUSE. HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLET!

Fort victims had different reasons for enlisting

THE OBAMA STRATEGY IN A NUTSHELL

COUNTDOWN TO THE END OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

REID'S BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS

President Obama is planning to reduce the cost of medical care by, taxing it?

The thin skinned White House takes on Fox News

Throw Granny off the Respirator - In flu pandemic, Florida may have to ration treatment

Free speech on the brink...

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty

The Nobel Committee's Not-So Unanimous Selection of Obama

Al Gore and the death of journalism

Peace Prize Winner Obama's No Champion of Human Rights

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize. Proving the world does have a sense of humor, or at least knows a joke when it sees one!

You Lie vs You Die...Where's the Appology?

Defendants in ACORN Suit Could Be Protected by Constitution

SPLC alarm: ’Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters coalescing’

INDOCTRINATION NATION!

Obama's I’m Sorry for America tour continues at the U.N.

Race Baiters Guilty Of Their Own Charges

YOU my friend are a racists!

Wilson vs. Obama -- Who Spoke The Truth?

MSNBC is Whitewashing the Van Jones story

Criticizing Bush = Free Speech, Criticizing Obama = Hate Speech

Arrest warrants issued for 11 ACORN workers in Voter Fraud Probe.

Obama plans Indoctrination, err, education speech to chrildren September 8th

Obama administration recognizes Ahmadinejad as the “elected leader” of Iran, sort of

This used to be America!

ACLU: Spying for America's Enemies since 2001

Obama wants a powerful 'civilian defense force'

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet

IMAGINING LIFE WITHOUT KENNEDY

OBAMA, THE 'CHARMING' LIAR!

MAXINE WATERS: YOU ARE A BUNCH OF NEANDERTHALS!

Glenn Beck Boycott backfires

Who are the real thugs?

Obama's Health Care WhoppersObama's Healthcare Whoppers

Obama plans Indoctrination, err, education speech to chrildren September 8^th