Wednesday, March 31, 2010

» Breaking: While An Anxious Nation Is Transfixed By The Healthcare Debate, The Obama Administration Restores ACORN Funding - Big Government

by Matthew Vadum

While America is distracted by Democrats’ attempts to unconstitutionally ram government-run healthcare down the throats of the American people, the Obama administration began preparing to resume funding to President Obama’s favorite community organizing group.

acorn

The fiscal floodgates are opening for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the president’s former employer and legal client, despite a congressional ban on funding the activist group that has long been a practitioner of election fraud.

In a March 16 memo Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag quietly ordered federal agencies to resume funding the group whose employees were caught on hidden camera videos last year condoning a variety of crimes including child prostitution and tax evasion.

ObamaandOrszag

The memo came a week after renegade federal judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York made permanent her temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN.

The memo also came despite the fact that the Department of Justice is planning to appeal Gershon’s ruling and seek a stay pending appeal.

It’s unclear why the Obama administration isn’t doing the responsible thing and waiting for the case to work its way through the judicial system.

Could the OMB be moving at lightning speed to restore funding for ACORN, which is under indictment in Nevada for election fraud, because ACORN is in dire financial straits? Perhaps it’s a reward for ACORN’s loyal support in the ObamaCare battle.

Hoarding, Penny-Pinching And Buying Gold - Forbes.com

Karlyn Bowman, 03.29.10, 12:01 AM EDT

How Americans are coping with the recession.


Fifty-four percent of Americans surveyed in the Pew Research Center's latest poll said there had been a time in the past year when they or someone in their household had been without a job or looking for work. A year ago 39% gave that response. That's a huge change--and only one of the many survey indicators revealing the widespread pain from the recession. In another question in the poll, only 10% said there were plenty of jobs available in their communities, while 85% said jobs were hard to find.

This shift in the public's mood is just as glaring when you compare answers to polling questions now with when the economy was doing well. In the new Pew poll, 24% of respondents said they have had problems paying their rent or mortgage, up from 13% in a 1999 Washington Post survey. Friday the administration announced new steps to deal with record foreclosures, which could climb to 4.5 million this year, up from 2.8 million in 2009. Twenty-eight percent in a new Kaiser Family Foundation survey said they had skipped a recommended medical test in the past year; 15% gave that response in 2000. Twenty-six percent now said they hadn't filled a prescription, up from 13% in 2000.

Article Controls

Emailemail

Many in the middle class report they are worried about staying there. In a new ABC News and Washington Post poll, a plurality described themselves as middle-class. Of this group, 41% said they were struggling to remain in the middle class, 52% comfortable in it and 6% moving beyond it.

So how are Americans coping with the pain? In a Harris Interactive ( HPOL - news - people ) online poll, 63% said they were purchasing more generic brands to save money, 45% brown-bagging their lunches, 39% going to the hairdresser or barber less often, 34% switching to refillable water bottles instead of purchasing bottled water and 33% canceling one or more subscriptions. Around two in 10 said they had canceled or cut back cable TV services and another 20% said they have considered doing so.

Some are taking more drastic action. Twenty percent told Fox News/Opinion Dynamics pollsters they had taken money out of the market because of their concerns about the economy, 18% stocked up on food, bottled water or other staples, 11% bought a gun and 6% purchased gold.

This anxiety may be contributing to other interesting changes in attitudes. When the economy was strong in 2001, people were evenly divided in a Gallup poll about whether they were the type of person who "more enjoys saving money" or "more enjoys spending money." Now 62% describe themselves as savers.

Americans have always been very happy with their jobs. But today our difficult economic climate may be contributing to especially high job satisfaction. A whopping 70% told Gallup interviewers in January that their job was the "ideal job" for them. That included a solid majority, 57%, of those in households with incomes of less than $12,000 a year. In a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics question, only 9% said they were fed up or tired of their jobs. By comparison, 82% said they were fed up and tired of partisan bickering in Washington, 81% the growing deficit, 57% poor customer service and 53% people having loud conversations on their cellphones.

Americans aren't optimistic about light at the end of the tunnel, telling pollsters that, despite economists' assertions, the recession won't be over any time soon. But most are coping and making changes that could pay dividends in the future.

Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow who studies public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly column for Forbes.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

CNSNews.com - Report From Liberal Cable Outlet Shows That More Guns Equals Fewer Firearms Deaths

Report From Liberal Cable Outlet Shows That More Guns Equals Fewer Firearms Deaths
Monday, March 29, 2010
By Joe Schoffstall

Colt Python revolver. (Wikipedia Commons)
(CNSNews.com) - A new report published by MSNBC.com shows that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens results in fewer deaths from the use of firearms.

“Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens prevent 1 million robberies, murders and rapes every year,” John Pierce, a Virginia-based gun-rights activist with opencarry.org, told MSNBC.com.

Alan M. Gottlieb, vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), called the finding "further evidence that everything the gun prohibitionists have been claiming and predicted over the past two decades has been fundamentally fraudulent.”

However, not everyone shares the sentiment of those pushing for laws that allow open carry and concealed carry. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group, said the movement for more open-carry and concealed-carry gun laws “has to do with selling more guns.”

While it was pushed by groups like the National Rifle Association, it also “dovetailed with the gun industry’s desperate need to find a new market,” she said.

The MSNBC.com report, Record numbers now licensed to pack heat, says that in the 1980s and 1990s, Americans were killed by guns at a rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population, at the time the concealed-carry movement (carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one’s person or close proximity) began gaining momentum.

In this decade, the gun-homicide rate has fallen to 4.07 per 100,000, which equates to a 28 percent reduction in homicides with the use of firearms. This decline in homicides follows a five-fold increase in a “shall-issue” (requirement of a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of the permit is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law) and unrestricted concealed-carry laws in states from 1986 to 2006, reported MSNBC.com.

According to federal background checks conducted on the sale of most firearms, the decline in homicides comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing.

While the number of gun sales held stable between 8.5 million and 9 million from 1999-2005, the FBI reported a rise in sales to 10 million in 2006. In 2007 the number jumped to 11 million; in 2008, up to 13 million; and more than 14 million in 2009 -- an increase of 55 percent in four years.

The nation's highest gun homicide rates are in Washington, D.C., with 20.50 deaths per 100,000 people, five times the general rate. Yet the District of Columbia has the strictest gun-control laws in the nation. The lowest rate of gun-related homicides is in Utah: 1.12 deaths per 100,000 people. Utah’s gun-control policy is very unrestricted.

According to SAF's Gottlieb, gun control advocates "repeatedly argued that more guns will equate to more crime and more firearm deaths, and MSNBC.com just let the air out of their sails with this exhaustive and well-balanced report.

“This is why,” said Gottleib, “anti-gun groups have lost their momentum and their credibility. They failed to gain traction even with a Democrat-controlled Congress and anti-gun White House. They are so desperate for attention that they have now declared war on private businesses just to generate publicity. Their high-profile campaign of hysteria against Starbucks for complying with state laws that allow concealed and open carry in their coffee shops is based on an issue they fabricated just to grab headlines and television face time, and the public knows it.”

Gottlieb concluded, “Every restrictive gun law, every ban, every gun-free-zone they have advocated and defended have one thing in common: they gave us a body count. The MSNBC.com report suggests America has had enough.”

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Communists Claim Obama Plays “Leading Role” in their “Coalition” | NewsReal Blog


2010 March 24

Before any liberal out there waxes indignant over my audacity to associate President Obama with communism, I have one thing to say to you: It’s not my fault that unapologetic socialists and marxists have worked tirelessly for decades to appropriate control of your political infrastructure. So, get over it. And get these wackjobs out of your political party while you’re at it.

On to the issue. A recent article in Political Affairs, which is affiliated with the Communist Party, goes on to extol what a fortuitous transitional situation we in America find ourselves in today. That is to say, the election of President Obama was a major advancement in the “struggle” (commie code word) toward the achievement of heaven on earth — i.e. the socialist utopia. Now, the Communist Party, to many, seems like a pathetic anachronism. What can dried-up hippies jonesing for their next medical marijuana ‘script really accomplish, anyway?

Forget communists. Communism is just one aspect of the larger socialist movement which, in fact, is stunningly powerful in America today. It has big money. Which means it has big organizational power, and it has ascended so high into the political stratosphere that marxist thug, SEIU bosses work closely with the President on issues completely unrelated to the union’s labor mission.

Let’s just call them “leftists” for now. What is important is regardless of their moniker, their mission is the same: “Propaganda and agitation,” as our comrades at Political Affairs explain. Organized leftists strive to foment social warfare; to pit identity groups against each other by reducing particular segments of society to mere victims, provoking their anger, legitimizing their envy and encouraging the demonization of the opposition. Thus, they continually infiltrate various interest groups — particularly minorities, but not always, such as in the case of the recent mass campus protests of very white, middle to upper class college students this spring. Leftists ride on the backs of these identity groups (and their anger) to generate support for incremental socialist policies. In this way, America’s left has acquired a “winning coalition” which helped secure Obama’s presidential victory. As the article in Public Affairs explains:

“We also know the electoral victory of the Obama Administration replacing the domination of the ultra right could only be achieved by a coalition of class and social forces…The winning coalition consisted of labor, the African American, Mexican American and other Latino peoples, Asians, Native Americans and other oppressed peoples, women, youth, LGBT community and others,”

I would add to this list the environmental movement. Poor Gaia is perhaps the original oppressed victim of capitalism. (Note: Please see DiscoverTheNetworks.org for an extensive account of the association between these groups and the far Left.)

The article goes on to say that Obama plays a leading role in this leftist coalition. The coalition, the author claims, was instrumental in defeating the “ultra right” in the 2008 election and will continue to be the force which will push the right into the recesses of America’s political landscape. The trick is to do this without inadvertently driving “moderates” and “independents” away from their own cause in the process.

“This coalition in which our first African American President plays the leading role was necessary to beat the ultra right in 2008 and remains necessary in order to defeat the sharp counterattack of the ultra right we are experiencing and to complete a decisive victory over it…”

The statement in bold is a reference to the Tea Party movement which the author later claims is composed of

“Tea baggers and other assorted racists and fanatical groups.”

Sound familiar? I think he might have been paraphrasing the anchors on CNN’s prime-time lineup. The article concludes thusly:

“[Through this coalition] we have been able to establish these strategic stages, strategy for this transition period, and tactics to accomplish it”

I’m going to venture to say that most of the unwitting members of this “coalition” don’t realize what kind of grand scheme the radical Left sees them as being so integrally a part of. Just as Barack Obama bristles every time conservatives accuse him of pursing policies that are apart of some “Bolshevik plot.” Maybe his indignation is genuine, maybe it isn’t. Who cares? The point is, from the highest offices, to the dupes paid to turn in fraudulent voter registration forms, America’s Left, and in particular the Democratic Party, has been so thoroughly infiltrated by socialist/marxist radicals that the two are virtually indistinguishable. Mutually they will continue to lead us toward an America of declining prosperity and diminishing liberty. What to do?

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

CNSNews.com - Obama Excludes Private and Catholic School Children From Easter Egg Roll Ticket Giveaway

Obama Excludes Private and Catholic School Children From Easter Egg Roll Ticket Giveaway
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

District of Columbia Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee receives an Easter basket filled with 3,000 reserved tickets to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll from U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan at a press conference in Northeast Washington on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration announced on Tuesday it has reserved 3,000 free tickets to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll for students in D.C.-area public and charter schools, but not for children who attend private or parochial schools.

Why exclude children in private and parochial schools, asked the father of a parochial school student at Tuesday’s press conference where U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the ticket giveaway.

“These tickets are from the White House to public schools, and we’re appreciative, but there may be other things unrelated to this press conference,” Fenty responded. “That’s a great question.”

The 3,000 reserved tickets will be distributed to students at 11 public schools in D.C. and a few others in Virginia and Maryland. Children at private or parochial schools in the Washington metropolitan area may attend the April 5 event, but only if they are among the people who registered for an online lottery system, by which the remaining free tickets -- an estimated 27,000 -- will be distributed.

That lottery is now closed, however. “All entries will have an equal chance of being selected if your application was submitted by Sunday, February 28,” the White House Web site says. Lottery results were announced on March 4.

Robert Brannum’s 17-year-old son Nicholas attends St. John’s College High School, a Catholic school in the District. Brannum told CNSNews.com he believes the 3,000 tickets reserved for public school students should be available to all students.

“The White House is a public building,” Brannum said. “The tickets are essentially being paid for with public dollars. So it should be open to everyone, not just going to select categories of students.”

Brannum said he not only supports D.C. public schools, he attended and taught at those schools. But, he added, “There are students in the District of Columbia who attend private schools, parochial schools, or even (are) home schooled, and their parents pay taxes and they should be able to participate in some of the benefits of being citizens of the District of Columbia.”

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee and D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty watch D.C. public school students cheer about the upcoming White House Easter Egg Roll at a press conference in Northeast Washington on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Mayor Fenty and D.C. Public School Chancellor Michelle Rhee accepted the 3,000 tickets in an Easter basket from Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Children from the city’s J.O. Wilson Elementary School cheered and jumped up and down when they were asked if they wanted to go to the Easter Egg Roll at the White House.

There’s no guarantee that the children at the press conference will get tickets, however. Rhee said it was up to each of the public schools chosen by the Obama administration to decide which students will get the reserved tickets.

The Obama administration has been criticized for failing to support programs to help low-income and minority children attend some of D.C.’s top private and parochial schools, including the Sidwell Friends School where the Malia and Sasha Obama attend classes.

Early in his administration, President Barack Obama called for an end to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which since 2004 has provided vouchers for thousands of low-income and minority children to attend private schools. Following widespread protest, Obama said the program would be funded to allow those children already enrolled in the program to graduate from the school of their choice, but that no funding would be provided to bring new children into the program.

On March 16, the Senate voted down a measure that would have reauthorized funding for the program.

The Easter Egg Roll dates back to 1878 when President Rutherford B. Hayes held the event after Congress banned egg rolling on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol building.

The theme of this year’s event is “Ready, Set, Go,” and the White House says it will “promote health and wellness.”

“All of the activities will encourage children to lead healthy and active lives and follow the First Lady’s ‘Let’s Move!’ initiative, a national campaign to combat childhood obesity,” the White House said.

The event will feature live music, sports courts, storytelling, egg rolling – and cooking stations.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms - Investor's Business Daily - Investors.com

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).


16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Flashback: Obama Promises Public 5 Days To View Bills Before He Signs Them





On the campaign trail President Obama said the "public will have five days to look at every bill that lands on my desk" before he signs it into law.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Hope and Change: Had Enough?

Hope and Change: Had Enough?

by Paul A. Rahe

Back in 1946, an ingenious advertising executive named Karl Frost suggested a simple, straightforward political slogan to the Massachusetts Republican Committee: “Had Enough? Vote Republican,” it read. This slogan was soon found on billboards all across the country, and in November of that year the Republicans picked up fifty-five seats in the House and twelve in the Senate, seizing control in both chambers.

miss-me-yet_472x354

By that November, the country had suffered under the New Deal for fourteen years, and Americans, understandably, were fed up. Moreover, as Michael Barone pointed out last May, “After World War II Democrats wanted to retain wartime high taxes, pro-union labor laws, and wage and price controls, all manipulatable for political benefit by political insiders. Republicans . . . won big enough majorities to lower taxes, revise labor laws and abolish controls.”

Were I in the shoes of Michael Steele, I would buy up billboard space all over the country and slap up the same slogan – for something similar should be possible this November. The healthcare debate was over some time ago. When Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in January, it was made abundantly clear that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party had lost that debate decisively. Now, in the face of fierce public opposition, they have jammed the bill through Congress, and they have done so without the cover of a single Republican vote. For this – as William Daley, the mastermind of the Chicago machine, warned in an op-ed that appeared in The Washington Post on Christmas eve – they will pay dearly and not just this coming November.

Abraham Lincoln once observed, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” It is possible, of course, that events will intervene between now and November. It is conceivable that the healthcare bill and the manner in which it was passed in both the Senate and the House will be forgotten. But this is not likely. If the Republicans stick together, mount a principled opposition to the Obama administration on all fronts, and recruit first-rate candidates to run in every district at both the state and the federal levels in November, it is highly likely that there will be a political earthquake in this country on a scale not seen since 1932.

As I have argued now for months – first, in August, here; then, in November, here and here; and, more recently, here, here, and here – a genuine political realignment may be in the offing. This has happened at irregular intervals in our nation’s past – most notably, in 1800, 1828, 1860, and 1932 – and on each occasion the political party benefiting from the upheaval was able to paint a plausible picture depicting their opponents as being parties to a conspiracy to overthrow the liberties possessed by their fellow Americans. This is what Thomas Jefferson did to the Federalists in and after 1800; it was what Andrew Jackson did to John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Nicholas Biddle, and the Whigs in and after 1828; it was what Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans did to the slave power conspiracy and its fellow travelers in the North in and after 1860, and it was what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did to Herbert Hoover and the business-minded progressives in and after 1932. When FDR claimed, at the 1936 Democratic convention, that “a small group” of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives,” he was merely rephrasing the charges lodged in an earlier time by Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and their political allies.

Of course, one cannot plausibly advance such a claim except in circumstances where one has a great deal of help from one’s opponents. In 1800, Jefferson profited from the quarrel pitting Alexander Hamilton against John Adams, and by exhibiting secessionist propensities at the Hartford Convention, the New England Federalists destroyed their own party. Something similar can be said regarding Nicholas Biddle and the supporters of the Second National Bank. The same is true for the supporters of the slave power in and after 1860, and Herbert Hoover was in similar fashion a godsend for FDR.

If the Republicans have a comparable opportunity in 2010 and 2012, it is because of what I described in my very first blogpost as “Obama’s Tyrannical Ambition.” Barack Obama has a gift. He has told us so himself, and he is right, but he errs in supposing that his oratorical skill will enable him to fool all of the people all of the time, and over time he has, in effect, unmasked his own party as a conspiracy on the part of a would-be aristocracy of do-gooders hostile to very idea of self-government in the United States. There is no need for me to review the record of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress in the last fifteen months. It is enough to say that, in an administration that promised transparency, everything has been negotiated behind closed doors in a manner suggestive of tyranny and that, in an administration that promised to distance itself from the lobbyists, every major bill has been written by them and is loaded with special deals that give new meaning to the old phrase “corrupt bargain.” The stimulus bill, cap-and-trade, healthcare reform: with these Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have brought home to the American people, as never before, the tyrannical propensities inherent in the progressive impulse. Thanks to them, everyone now knows that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat.

Of course, it takes two to tango. Thus far, the Republicans have played their cards well by observing the age-old rule: When your opponents are in the process of committing suicide, stay out of the way. In the circumstances that they now face, it may be sufficient that they maintain discipline and make abundantly clear their opposition to Obama’s domestic program. Sooner or later, however, they will have to develop a positive program, and that will decide their fate. The Republican victory of 1946 was vitally important for the future of the American republic in the fashion suggested by Barone, but it was short-lived. If the Republicans are to do better this time around, they will have to make the case that the entitlement regime inherited by the Obama is as unAmerican as what he has added to it.

Put simply, it is not enough that the Republicans claim that they can administer the welfare state more effectively than the Democrats. As FDR and Truman demonstrated, business progressivism is not, in the long run, a politically viable alternative to government-centered progressivism. For a realignment to take place, there has to be a return to first principles – to the principles of limited government embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Fortunately, the welfare state that we have inherited is visibly bankrupt in more than one way. Medicare in its current form is unsustainable; Social Security is no longer viable. The cohort of retirees is growing ever larger, and they live on and on. The cohort of those within the work force is not growing at a faster rate. Taxes can perhaps be raised but if they are raised too much they will choke off investment, get in the way of economic growth, cease to bring in the revenue requisite for supporting our entitlement programs.

In short, we have no choice. One way or another, there will be entitlement reform. If the Republicans come up with a viable plan – and Paul Ryan may have done just that – and if they implement it, the future may well be theirs. If they do not, what they gain this November, even if they gain the Presidency two years thereafter, will not long endure. The real question before us is simple. Do the Republicans have the moxie to seize this opportunity and turn the country around? Do they understand the principles of limited government? Can they articulate them in such a way as to bring home to the voters the nature and value of the liberties they have lost with the onset of the administrative state? With the help of Barack Obama, they have an opportunity now that last had its equal in 1946. What they have to remember are Lincoln ’s words: “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.”

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Barack Obama and the date-rape of America






David Kupelian David  Kupelian

Barack Obama and the date-rape of America

Posted: March 05, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Good Americans from sea to shining sea are grappling right now with how to mentally process what they're witnessing in Washington, D.C.

The spectacle of a far leftist president literally forcing socialized medicine down the throat of an unwilling center-right America is reminiscent, perhaps more than any other contemporary metaphor, of date rape.

A man determined to have his way with a woman may start off seducing her with lies, flattery and the usual pretense of caring about her. But at a critical moment, when she says, "Stop, I'm not comfortable with this and don't want to go any further," he has a choice: Either do the right thing and back off, or abandon all prior pretensions and take her by force.

As president, Barack Obama courted us with sweet talk, but America grew increasingly uncomfortable with his advances and firmly said, "Stop" – in fact, screamed bloody murder for months. Yet Obama remains obsessed with forcing himself on America.

Put aside for the moment the fact that Obama is single-handedly destroying the Democratic Party for years, perhaps decades, by maniacally pursuing Obamacare as though it were Moby Dick and he Captain Ahab, leading all the Pequod's hapless Democrat crewmen into political destruction.

Rather, let's focus on how to truly understand what we're seeing – something virtually unprecedented in the American experience, at least in our lifetimes.

America is not, after all, a place like Cuba or Zimbabwe where corrupt dictators get their way through sheer ruthlessness, intimidation and naked arrogance. We're accustomed to the rule of law, to civility, to due process, even in the most difficult and contentious of times. When Hillarycare was soundly rejected by Americans during Bill Clinton's first term, he wisely backed off and stopped trying to force socialized medicine on us. (And Bill was a guy with his own date-rape problems, but that's another story.)

Find out why Sean Hannity says of David Kupelian's latest blockbuster "How Evil Works": "This is a powerful book ... I couldn't put it down." Order your autographed copy today from WND's Superstore!

Thus, here are a few useful prisms through which we can examine this disturbingly un-American drama riveting our attention day after day:

The Ideological Prism: Obama is America's first truly "radical leftist" president – something worlds apart from merely "liberal."

Quick review: Abandoned by his father, Obama as a teen was mentored by father figure Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA; at college, he admits (in his book "Dreams From My Father") to having been attracted to the "Marxist professors"; then he went into "community organizing," the radical political agitation system created by Chicago Marxist Saul Alinsky; he later launched his political career in the living room of another Chicago Marxist (and Weather Underground terrorist) William Ayers; his pastor and spiritual mentor for 20 years Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a Marxist ("Black Liberation Theology" is Marxism disguised as Christianity). As president, Obama appointed as close advisers a self-proclaimed communist named Van Jones, and Anita Dunn who publicly claimed her hero was communist genocidal mass murderer Mao Zedong. All this and much more earn Obama the label "leftist radical" or "socialist" – many say "Marxist."

And according to Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" (which as I point out in my new book "How Evil Works" was dedicated to Lucifer!), all the lies, deceit and corruption in Washington currently marshaled to help pass Obamacare are noble and moral.

The Psychological Prism: There's a lot of talk about Obama's "narcissism" these days, with everyone from radio giant Rush Limbaugh to Pulitzer-winning columnist (and former psychiatrist) Charles Krauthammer referring frequently to the president's extremely narcissistic behavior.

A few weeks ago I interviewed a top forensic psychiatrist – a medical professional who makes his living evaluating and providing expert testimony regarding the mental condition of people in court cases. He asked me not to disclose his name, but he's well known and has served as an expert witness in thousands of such cases. I asked him, "Does Barack Obama have Narcissistic Personality Disorder?" Mind you, this was not about whether the president is "narcissistic," which everyone already knows. Rather, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a serious mental illness or personality disorder with a broad and disturbing symptom picture.

The forensic psychiatrist's response to my question: "Yes, that's a fair assessment, maybe even Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder" (which crosses over into criminality). We went through a few of the major symptoms, including: 1) a grandiose view of one's achievements (everything with Obama is "historic"), 2) utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing him or his policies is attacked as a radical or extremist, even Fox News was attacked), and 3) lack of genuine empathy (in his televised speech immediately after the Fort Hood shooting – while the entire nation was reeling in shock – he engaged in small talk and "shout-outs" for two full minutes before mentioning the worst terror attack on our soil since 9/11.)

The Moral-Legal Prism: Obama is a product of Chicago politics, the most corrupt political cesspool in the nation, as a recent study from the University of Illinois at Chicago's political science department once again attests. The blatant healthcare bribes ("Louisiana Purchase," "Cornhusker Kickback," special deals for unions and other powerful interests ad nauseam) are the tip of the iceberg. "Corruption" is synonymous with "business" for the crowd currently in power.

How do corrupt politicians think and feel? Imagine you just met someone who was unusually arrogant, greedy and selfish, who considered himself far superior to everyone else, above the need to be truthful, above the law (and willing to break any law he could get away with), who was contemptuous of others and utterly impervious to criticism or self-reflection – and who also harbored an overwhelming urge not only to take your money, but to control you, to exert power over your life! You might understandably conclude that person is mentally deranged or even a criminal. But there's another group of people that think a lot like that: our current crop of leaders in Washington.

Now, regardless of whatever level of validity you ascribe to any or all of these views (they're not mutually exclusive, far from it), we're still left with a haunting question: How can an apparently decent man like Barack Obama – who undoubtedly loves his daughters and probably reads them bedtime stories, has a good sense of humor, and is highly intelligent and likeable – justify lying and deceiving all the time, pretending to care about Republican input, about transparency, about controlling costs, and so on? Further, how can he justify using such dishonest means to force his will on an unwilling American public? In other words, how can he countenance, in effect, date-raping America?

What we need to understand is that, between his hate-based ideology (Winston Churchill called socialism the "gospel of envy"), extreme narcissism and long-internalized political corruption, Obama and others like him, literally drunk on power, live essentially in a state of delusion: Down is up, truth is cruel and impractical, corruption is just "conducting business," morality is repression, lying is a creative force.

Those on the far left regions where Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid dwell regard free-market capitalism as irredeemably evil, exploitive and unjust – and therefore in need of destruction to make way for the creation of something more noble and just. Likewise, they look at influential conservatives not simply as "old-fashioned," "selfish" or "religious nuts," but as evil. (Remember, Dick Cheney was "Darth Vader" and Karl Rove "the emperor.") If you think I exaggerate the monumental, self-righteous rage with which the left abhors conservatives, watch MSLSD for 15 minutes. I rest my case.

Thus, the left thinks of their constant lying and deceiving the way you and I might regard lying and deceiving were we German undercover operatives in the Nazi army plotting to kill Hitler, as in the true-life Operation Valkyrie. Col. von Stauffenberg and the other courageous patriots in the German army were lying and deceiving all day long. After all, war is deception, and they were operating behind enemy lines, trying to slay a monster and end a terrible war. Their deceptions were indeed noble.

That's how Obama and company think of their daily depredations that endanger the very existence of America as a land of liberty and light among the nations.

Any way you slice it – psychologically, ideologically, politically, morally – we are talking about people in the grip of dark forces and delusion, hell-bent on leading the rest of us downward, which they see as upward. The fact that they may not be fully conscious of the evil they do may make it easier for us not to hate them. But hate is not what we need, anyway. What we need is to vote every single one of Obama's congressional collaborators out of office this November, and to do it so decisively that even "the anointed one's" gigantic fortress-life shell of denial is shattered into a million pieces – as the bells of freedom ring once again throughout America.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Economy Kept On Life Support While Global Governance Is Organized : Neithercorp Press

Shock And Awe

The illusion of U.S. recovery seems to be paramount in the plan for Globalist centralization. Every scam imaginable has been fashioned to lure the public into a sense of false comfort. In my original observations on the economic collapse, I believed that we would likely see a “trigger” event in 2010, which would set off a “rolling breakdown” that would not fully climax for a few years. Now, I am not so sure. After examining the facts behind the implementation of SDRs as well as the potentially explosive situation in the treasury market, I believe that a “shock and awe” scenario is becoming more probable. The behavior of the Fed, along with that of the IMF seems to suggest that they are preparing for a focused collapse, peaking within weeks or months instead of years, and the most certain fall of the dollar.

As I think of it now, the advantages of a sudden financial flash flood are numerous. In a drawn out collapse, the Liberty Movement is given a tremendous time advantage, allowing us to double and redouble our membership while the public opinion of the Federal Reserve and the government in general would deteriorate. In a sudden breakdown, our time will be cut short, and the public will be distracted and fearful, desperate for an organized authority to offer any semblance of “order.” A slow collapse allows for the Liberty Movement to work peacefully within the system to build a third party capable of dethroning the current two party farce. A sudden collapse erases all political activity and opens the door to martial law and illegitimate government. And finally, a fast moving meltdown leaves a much stronger psychological impression; a catastrophic waking nightmare, instead of a slow grinding depression. A world government could never be brought about due to the “monotony” of a long slow economic burnout. Too many factors could present themselves in such an extended period that might interfere with the desired end result. Too many variables to calculate. In an abrupt collapse, the Globalists would need only to gauge and influence the amount of fear in the populace to a sufficient boiling point then leap in with their intended solution to the problem; centralized global governance.

I feel that in either method, the Central Bankers will fail to reach their ultimate goal, but the prospect of a direct monetary break with limited warning does make the atmosphere much heavier. One can only prepare as much as possible mentally and emotionally, and keep his eyes wide open…


By Giordano Bruno

Neithercorp Press - 03/10/2010

Monday, March 15, 2010

ACORN activities 'insidious' and 'evil' (OneNewsNow.com)

ACORN activities 'insidious' and 'evil'
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 3/15/2010 6:00:00 AMBookmark and Share

A public-interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption says it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act that reveal despite evidence of massive voter registration fraud by the controversial group ACORN, the Obama administration shut down a federal investigation looking into the organization.

Judicial Watch (JW) says it obtained the documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that detail investigations into the alleged corrupt activities of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. JW spokesman Chris Farrell says the documents reference serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by ACORN, including two complaints filed by Republican registrars in Connecticut during the 2008 election season.

"All of these records that have been produced by these two registrars show fraudulent, false, invalid voter registration information that was supplied to the registrars," he explains.

According to Farrell, ACORN's objective has little to do with getting a particular candidate elected -- and everything to do with undermining the nation's voter-registration system.

"It's quite insidious," says the group spokesman. "It's really a very, for lack of a better term, evil attempt to destroy the American public's confidence in the voting system. They don't care what the [election] outcome is -- they want to make sure that the process is broken so there's no faith and trust in who gets elected."

But Farrell says despite the evidence, the Obama Justice Department -- while acknowledging ACORN had engaged in "questionable hiring and training practices" -- closed down the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN broke no laws.

Says JW president Tom Fitton: "Given President Obama's close connections to ACORN, including his campaign's hiring of the ACORN's Project Vote organization, it seems rather obvious why Attorney General [Eric] Holder has failed to investigate these and other alleged ACORN criminal activities."

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Slaughtering the Constitution: The Health Care bill pushed through without a vote?

Slaughtering the Constitution: The Health Care bill pushed through without a vote?

March 13, 9:38 AMCochise County Libertarian ExaminerJesse Mathewson

Wednesday March 10, “House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.” Apparent is the disdain that our current “progressive” members of Congress are showing for the Constitution, which in Article 1 Section 7 clearly states the following, “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States.” Local Cochise County residents are questioning what this will mean, after all the Constitution is the very base of all legal and civic related formation in our country today.

While many Americans do agree that some oversight or even changes must occur with the current health care set-up it should be noted that the reasons it has not been able to pass so far is that only one side, the Obama/ Pelosi love affair has been unwilling to waver on various agendas. Republicans are willing to work with the Democrats as long as certain issues are dealt with such as state funded abortion and more. Obviously, there are issues with the current bill being pushed at this time, and for Libertarians like me those issues are not based in arguments regarding abortion or end of life agreements. No, we are far more interested in how the nation will be funding this.

In this case however, if this attempt by Slaughter is successful it will completely unravel the Constitution, someone should remind this Representative that she swore an oath to uphold the very Constitution she is now attempting to dismiss. In addition, while they are at it remind Obama who he works for and represents! This is yet another great example of why we must elect people who truly represent the active voting population, yet another reminder of why we need to get rid of the dead weight that is Congress and Senate today. It is time to elect true constitutionally bound representatives of the people. Remember if it smells like an old politician and it looks like an old politician than likely it is just an old politician!

If something as this is done it will be just a small step to a dictatorship after all what is it in this great Democratic Republic that keeps the government in its place and ensures the rights of the people? I hope that you answered this as I have the people, the Constitution, and a healthy dose of respect for the role you provide the people as their representative!

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Israel says `bad options' for Iran getting closer — developing nukes or military action | Washington Examiner

[Print] [Email] Share

Israel says `bad options' for Iran getting closer — developing nukes or military action

By: EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press
03/09/10 9:30 PM EST


UNITED NATIONS — The two "bad options" for Iran — letting the country develop nuclear weapons or using force to destroy its nuclear capabilities — are closer than they were a year ago, Israel's U.N. ambassador warned Tuesday.

Gabriela Shalev told journalists at the U.N. Israel still hopes diplomatic engagement and sanctions will halt Iran's push to become a nuclear power, but warned: "our intelligence tells us ... that Iran is racing towards this kind of nuclear capability, and it's not a matter of years."

She pointed out that Iran is already admitting that it's enriching uranium and that the level of enrichment is higher than needed for civilian use.

Shalev said high-ranking Israeli and U.S. government and military leaders both in Washington and Jerusalem are currently discussing whether a military strike could stop Iran's nuclear program.

Israel's chief of staff is visiting Washington, while U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is in Jerusalem.

Shalev said she was encouraged that Biden said Iran poses a threat to the United States.

"I say even more — Iran is a threat to the whole world," she added.

The United States and key Western powers have circulated proposals for a fourth round of U.N. sanctions to step up pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear program.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, aimed solely at producing nuclear energy. But the West's concerns were heightened by a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that said Tehran may be making nuclear bombs.

Shalev said that China and Russia — both veto-wielding members of the Security Council — still believe there's room for diplomacy.

"They still believe — and I respect it — that you have to exhaust all diplomatic efforts before you have these kind of sanctions that will affect the economy," she said. "They do not want to inflict any harm on the Iranian people."

Israel, on the other hand, believes that diplomatic overtures have been exhausted because "the Iranians are mocking them and defying ... the formal resolutions of the Security Council," she said.

Israel would like the council to approve "crippling" sanctions, but Shalev conceded "the chances now seem grim."

If the council doesn't act, she said, Israel will urge the United States and the European Union to impose tough measures.

In Washington, the House passed legislation last December that would bar U.S. export of technology to help Iran develop its petroleum capacity, but the Senate has not acted. Congress previously barred American investment in Iran's energy programs.

Kenneth Katzman, an Iran analyst, told a conference in Washington Tuesday at the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank, that the mood in Congress appeared to be favorable to imposing U.S. sanctions.

"Congress will work to find every which way to squeeze Iran," he said.

But Flynt Leverett, a former CIA, State Department and White House official, dismissed U.S. sanctions on Iran as "a policy of feeling good" that would open the door for China and other countries to take up the slack.

___

Associated Press Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report from Washington.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

How Obama plans to steal the next election

STEALING THE NEXT ELECTION
From amnesty to universal registration,
Obama's strategy for maintaining power


As Barack Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet, the tea party movement explodes and Democrats lose election after election – even in Massachusetts – one giant question looms large for Team Obama: How to stay in power?
The answer to that question can be found in the groundbreaking March issue of Whistleblower magazine, titled "STEALING THE NEXT ELECTION."
HIJACKING SCIENCE
This game-changing special report is summarized in its long subtitle: "Amnesty, universal voter registration, felons voting, operatives planted: Team Obama's strategy for maintaining permanent power."
"The people currently running the show in Washington," said Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, "come from the radical leftist world of Saul Alinsky in which everything they do – no matter how unethical, corrupt and flat-out illegal – is morally justified if it advances their agenda. Winning votes and elections by any means possible is their stock in trade."
"STEALING THE NEXT ELECTION"
surveys the various stratagems the far left is currently developing to consolidate power in the U.S. long-term. The list includes:
Universal voter registration: Now being secretly prepared by at least two prominent members of Congress, this is essentially a scheme to legalize voter fraud by shifting responsibility for registering to vote from the citizen to the government, meaning people are automatically registered to vote, based on DMV records, income-tax returns, welfare rolls, unemployment lists and other government databases.
Illegal immigrant registration: Since government databases contain names of non-citizens, not to mention mentally incompetent individuals and felons – factors that would ordinarily disqualify a person from voting in most states – universal registration would open the floodgates to fraud. And since many people own property in more than one location and pay taxes to numerous government entities, they would be afforded the opportunity to vote in multiple locations.
Amnesty: Disguised once again by euphemisms like "comprehensive immigration reform," amnesty will create millions of new Democrat voters. As Obama adviser and SEIU executive vice president Eliseo Medina said recently regarding amnesty: "Can you imagine 8 million new voters who care about our issues and will be voting? We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
Convicted felons voting: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late last year cleared the way for inmates to vote from prison. The court overturned a Washington state law prohibiting felons from voting until they are released and off parole, arguing state restrictions unfairly penalized minorities since they have a higher incarceration rate. Polls show felons overwhelmingly prefer Democrats.
Planting operatives in America's statehouses: A subversive, Soros-backed group called the Secretary of State Project is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation, from which posts they can help tilt the electoral playing field.


Thursday, March 4, 2010

Anger at D.C. Shapes Races

Candidates Nationwide Try to Match Success of Perry's Anti-Washington Push


By STEPHANIE SIMON And ANA CAMPOY
[TEXGOV] Associated Press

Candidates across the U.S. hope to capitalize on the anti-Washington sentiment that helped Texas Gov. Rick Perry win the GOP primary Tuesday.

The top Democrat running for governor of Kansas is lagging badly in the polls, but he thinks he has found a winning strategy in the campaign of Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.

Mr. Perry cruised to a commanding victory Tuesday in his gubernatorial primary by tapping into voters' seething anger at Washington. Governor for more than a decade, Mr. Perry is hardly an outsider—but he is defiantly outside the Beltway.

And in this election season, that may be the most prized credential of all.

Candidates across the country are taking a page from Mr. Perry's playbook this year and running on platforms that are strongly anti-Washington, going after the Obama administration and both parties in Congress.

That is certainly the plan for Tom Holland, a Democratic state senator running for governor of Kansas. The Republicans have put up U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, a popular, well-known and well-financed veteran of Kansas politics who has served 16 years in Congress. He is the heavy favorite; a Rasmussen Reports poll this week had him up 22 points.

But Mr. Holland insists he can win with a simple message: "I'm not the entrenched politician," he said. "People are looking for something new. "

Outsiders are also pressing strong primary challenges to incumbent senators in Arizona and Utah and stirring up races from Florida to California.

In Colorado, a little-known suburban city councilman, Republican Ryan Frazier, raised more money last quarter for his congressional bid than all but one of the state's incumbent members of the U.S. House.

In Arkansas, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter raised $1 million in just two days after announcing he would challenge two-term incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic primary. That figure "shows the depth of voters' anger" said Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org, the liberal activist group that coordinated fund raising for Mr. Halter.

Candidates with Washington ties are responding by emphasizing their local roots. Mr. Brownback's campaign manager, David Kensinger, said the senator and his family still live in Topeka and Mr. Brownback regularly tours every county in the state, so voters don't view him as a Washington politician. "He's in touch," Mr. Kensinger said.

Anger at Washington is undoubtedly strong. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in late January showed that just 28% of Americans believe the federal government is "working well" or "okay." And 93% say there is too much partisan infighting inside the Beltway.

But it remains to be seen whether candidates—especially Democrats—can ride the anti-Washington wave all the way to victory in November.

In both Missouri and Ohio, the GOP is likely to nominate veteran congressmen to run for U.S. Senate. Democrats in those states are already trying to make an issue out of the time that Missouri's Roy Blunt and Ohio's Rob Portman have spent in Washington. Mr. Blunt, a former member of the Republican leadership, is in his seventh term and Mr. Portman served 12 years before stepping down in 2005.

But political analyst Nathan Gonzales doubts the insider label will hurt Republicans. Voters sour on Washington politics are "more likely to take that anger out on the party that runs Washington these days, and that's the Democrats," said Mr. Gonzales, an editor with the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report.

And many state and local elections are more likely to focus on bread-and-butter issues such as jobs, economic growth and the state of public education.

Republican Scott McInnis, a former congressman running for governor of Colorado, considers Mr. Perry a friend but doesn't plan to mimic his tirades against the federal government. The voters Mr. McInnis talks with are far more concerned about local taxes and Colorado's economy, said his spokesman.

Even Mr. Perry, whose anti-Washington theme resonated with primary voters in his race against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, may have to pivot to a more state-focused campaign for the general election, local political experts said. In his victory speech Tuesday night, Mr. Perry stuck with the message that had been so successful. He said voters had sent a clear message "from Driftwood, Texas to Washington, D.C.… 'Stop messing with Texas!' " But Mr. Perry's opponent in the general election, former Houston Mayor Bill White, isn't a Washington insider.

"You have got to be careful in taking a blueprint that works in a Republican primary and applying it in the general election in a diverse state," said Richard Murray, a political scientist at the University of Houston.

—Susan Davis contributed to this article.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Nurse Takes Down Obamacare Rationale with Classic One-Liner



2010 March 2
by David Forsmark
In the continuing discussion begun with Keith Olbermann’s latest Meltdown over government health care, commenter “Peachy” has been providing excellent commentary.
Probably the most enduring one-line dismissal of government health care is P.J. O’Rourke’s classic– “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”
Yesterday, Peachy, a veteran nurse, scored a similar hit on Obamacare’s notion that government should re-order 1/5 of the U.S economy to solve several small problems like insuring those with low incomes or pre-existing conditions:
“Only a fool burns down the entire house just to change out the lightbulbs”
That’s worth repeating.  Pass it on.  Are you paying attention Republicans?

Monday, March 1, 2010

Applying Alinsky: Why Obamacare Makes No Sense : WesternFront America

Applying Alinsky: Why Obamacare Makes No Sense

rules-for-radicals After seven and a half hours of the Republicans trying to introduce some rationality into the discussion of Obamacare, the “reform” of Medicare that actually takes trillions out of the present system and adds millions of people into it, the ordinary American can be excused for being confused, frustrated, and angry.

That’s exactly where President Obama, the Chicago political mafia around him, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want people to be. At one point in the pointless all-day meeting on Thursday, she even claimed that passing Obamacare would create four million jobs overnight! Even for Speaker Pelosi, that’s a new level of insane babble.

Nothing coming out of the leadership in the White House or Congress makes a grain of sense and it is calculated to making the public so hopeless that, in the end, when they manage to bribe their way to a “reconciliation” vote to pass it, the public will feel defeated by all their efforts to date and ripe for more legislative horrors such as Cap-and-Trade.

Those efforts were seen in the heated town hall meetings during the summer, a march on Washington, D.C. in September, the elections of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey, and a Senator from Massachusetts. In very obvious ways, the public is shouting No! No! No!

Forgotten and unreported in all this are the “Rules for Radicals” by the godfather of all radical community organizers, Saul Alinsky. The President who began his political career as a community organizer and whose entire approach to politics is based on his book, said “It was that education that was seared into my brain. It was the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard.”

Alinsky taught that Americans must be overwhelmed with a never-ending barrage of crisis, emergencies, and unworkable ‘solutions’ that exacerbate problems. This is why Rahm Emanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff, famously said that a crisis should never be wasted.

It may even explain why the financial crisis conveniently occurred in the last weeks of the Bush term and during the campaign for the presidency.

It also explains why the so-called “stimulus” bill has done nothing to create jobs and, in fact, why some ten million Americans have lost their jobs in the past year while billions were allocated to countless political pork projects rather than taking steps to lower the taxes on corporations and small businesses in order to actually stimulate hiring and growth.

Alinsky also preached the importance of intimidation and of ridicule to achieve one’s goals. Though guarded, the President used both at the meeting to discuss Obamacare. Just ask Senator John McCain or Rep. Eric Cantor.

Again, because the mainstream media, still in love with a President whose approval ratings now stand at only 44% and heading south, neither vetted him as a candidate, nor analyzed the Alinsky approach that he cites as the greatest influence in his life. The public can be forgiven for not knowing that Alinsky’s book is dedicated to “the very first radical”, none other than “Lucifer” a.k.a. Satan

Now perhaps you can understand why, when the 2,400 page bill was actually put on display during the meeting, President Obama dismissed it as “political theatre” and “a prop”, but it was neither. How can one discuss such a massive bill without, at least, bringing it to the meeting allegedly intended for that purpose?

The bill, however, contains some of the most wrenching and damaging changes to the nation’s healthcare system and the insurance programs involved with it that it cannot and must not be so casually dismissed.

If Obamacare passes, the healthcare system that Americans value will be destroyed and turned into one resembling the failed systems in neighboring Canada and in Great Britain where horror stories of delayed and denied care are routine.

Barack Obama is the apotheosis of Saul Alinsky’s gameplan to destroy the republic and replace the Constitution with an all-powerful socialist central government.

First we must, by drowning Congress in calls, faxes, and emails, make it abundantly clear that we are opposed to Obamacare. We must sway as many fence-sitters as possible.

Then, in November, we must vote out of office those incumbents who have supported and voted for it.

And lastly we must return power in Congress to the Republicans who have been chastened and learned from their mistakes in the 2006 and 2008 elections. The nation’s future depends on it.