Tuesday, November 30, 2010

WHY NO SALUTE BY OBAMA AT MEDAL OF HONOR CEREMONY?

By Attorney Rees Lloyd
November 26, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

A moment of national pride took place recently in the White House when an American soldier, Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, received the Medal of Honor for bravery above and beyond the call of duty in combat in Afghanistan.

Sgt. Giunta became the first living American soldier to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War. He is now one of only eighty-eight (88) living holders of the Medal of Honor.

As modest and self-effacing as he is brave, Sgt. Giunta brought further honor to himself by his humility in receiving the nation’s highest medal of valor. While he made no comment in the ceremony, Giunta said before the ceremony that he was “not at peace” with being “singled out” for the honor as so many other soldiers did so much. And after the ceremony, he said he would trade the honor in a moment if he could bring back those whose lives he attempted to save under enemy fire but was unable to save. He definitely showed that he was an American in whom America could be proud.

In contrast, there was another “first” at the ceremony involving the Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama, in whose conduct the nation cannot and should not take pride: As far as is known, Obama became the first President, the first Commander-in-Chief , not to salute the living recipient of the Medal of Honor after presenting the medal.

It is a tradition in the military for all military personnel, no matter how high their rank, including the Commander-in-Chief, to salute a holder of the Medal of Honor no matter how lowly his or her rank. If General David Petreas was to encounter Sgt. Giunta, it would be the General who would salute the enlisted man, as a sign of respect for that soldier’s extraordinary bravery, but also to show respect to all those who have received the Medal of Honor.


At all gatherings of veterans of the American Legion, or VFW, or other veterans organizations, if a Medal of Honor recipient enters the room, even a National Convention involving thousands, the proceedings stop to render military honor to that holder of the Medal of Honor. All veterans rise, come to attention, and salute. It is a matter of pride, of respect, of tradition.

And, as far as is known, it is tradition that every President who has had the honor to present the Medal of Honor to a living recipient, has shown humility, respect, and national pride in that recipient by stepping back and rendering a salute.

It was missing in action in the Obama presentation. He is apparently above all that; “like a God,” as an editor of Newsweek once wrote.

Instead of rendering the traditional salute, after fumbling as if all-thumbs in trying to affix the blue-ribboned Medal of Honor, Obama, equally awkwardly, tried to “hug” the Sergeant. Yes, a “hug” for the soldier who remained at attention with eyes front in military bearing.

But a “hug” is not a “salute,” even in the Age of Obama. While there may be some comedic value in Obama’s pathetic display, it was more emetic than comedic. I didn’t write about it at the time, so as not to distract from Sgt. Giunta’s receipt of the Medal of Honor. But days have past, and it needs to be said.

Why? Is it naught but petty carping of poor President Obama? I think not. He is the “Commander-in-Chief” who has in his power the lives of those who serve in defense of the country, which he himself did not deign to do. It is pointing out that this man, this professional politician, repeatedly evidences contempt for America, for America’s traditions, and for Americans who respect those traditions

Monday, November 22, 2010

8 Examples Of How The Government Is Attempting To Take Total Control

By Michael Snyder
The Economic Collapse

Over the past several decades, no matter which political party has been in power the government has continued to become a larger part of our lives. These days many people are speaking of the "nanny state" that we have created, but the reality is far worse than that. The truth is that the government has become a gluttonous, out of control behemoth that is gobbling up everything in sight and that is attempting to exert full spectrum dominance over our lives. Today, the government seems to have an insatiable hunger to watch us, track us and control us. Now they even want to feel our private parts before we get on an airplane. No matter what politicians we send to Washington D.C., it just seems to get worse and worse. Anyone who still believes that we live in "the land of the free" is completely and totally delusional.

It isn't just in one particular area that all of this government intrusion into our lives is so offensive. What we are witnessing is the government slowly digging its fingers even deeper into our lives in a thousand different ways. Sadly, most Americans see the government as the one who is supposed to take care of them from the cradle to the grave, as the one who is supposed to fix all of the problems in society and as the one who is their ultimate authority.

This is in direct contradiction to the concept of a "limited government" that our Founding Fathers tried so desperately to enshrine in our founding documents. The American people need a big-time wake up call. The following are 8 examples of how the U.S. government is attempting to take even more control over our lives....

#1 Taking Total Control Of Our Food - S. 510 "The Food Safety Modernization Act"

S. 510, "The Food Safety Modernization Act", is another huge power grab by the FDA and the federal government over our food supply. The bill is written so broadly and so vaguely that nobody really knows what it means. The potential for abuse of these vague new powers would be staggering. So will the government abuse these powers? Those who are in favor of the bill say that of course the government will be reasonable, but those who are opposed to the bill point to all of the other abuses that are currently taking place as evidence that we simply cannot trust the feds with vague, undefined powers.

Fortunately, the Tester Amendment has been attached to S. 510 at least for now, but big agriculture is not happy about this, and they will be doing everything they can to get it kicked out of the final version of the law. In any event, if this food safety law does get passed, tens of millions of Americans will be left wondering what they are allowed to grow in their back yards, what seeds they are allowed to save and what can and cannot be sold at farmer's markets.

In case you think this is paranoid, just consider what is already happening. It has been documented that the feds recently raided an Amish farmer at 5 AM in the morning because they claimed that he was was engaged in the interstate sale of raw milk in violation of federal law. If the feds are willing to stoop so low as to raid Amish farmers, do you think they will have any hesitation when the time comes to raid your home?

#2 Taking Total Control Of Air Travel - The Dehumanizing Full Body Scanners And "Enhanced Pat-Downs"

Totalitarian governments throughout history have always sought to dehumanize their subjects. Sadly, that is exactly what is happening in America today. If you want to get on an airplane in the United States, you will now be forced to either let TSA agents gawk at your naked body or let TSA agents grope your entire body including your genitals.

What these TSA agents are being instructed to do to ordinary Americans is so bizarre that it is hard to believe. It is being reported that in many instances TSA agents are actually reaching down the pants of male travelers and up the skirts of female travelers. One retired special education teacher was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an "enhanced pat-down" by TSA agents. Quite a number of women that have been through these "enhanced pat-downs" have used the phrase "sexual assault" to describe the experience.

So is this what America has become? A place that is so "dangerous" that we all must be treated like prison inmates? Large numbers of Americans are swearing that they will simply not fly anymore, but what happens when these "enhanced pat-downs" start showing up at our schools, our shopping centers and our sporting events someday?

#3 Taking Total Control Of Our Health Care - The Loss Of Our Health Freedom

Once upon a time, Americans had control over their own health care decisions. That is no longer true today. Thanks to major changes in our health care laws, the health care landscape in America has been dramatically changed. Americans are now forced to participate in the officially-sanctioned health care system by purchasing health insurance. But Americans cannot just get any kind of health insurance policy that they want. Our health insurance choices are now tightly constrained by thousands of regulations.

Not only that, but doctors in America no longer have the freedom to treat patients however they see fit. Only "approved" treatments are permissible, and now the federal government is going to be telling doctors which of those "approved" treatments are "cost-effective" enough. As the new health care laws are fully implemented over the next decade, the American people are going to become truly horrified not only about how much their health insurance premiums are going up, but also about how much health freedom they have actually lost.

#4 Taking Control Of Our Money - Multiplying Taxes

Whenever one tax goes down, it seems like several other taxes either go up or get invented. The truth is that Americans are being drained by the federal government, state governments and local governments in dozens upon dozens of different ways. To our various levels of government, our primary function is to serve as a revenue source. Each year it seems like they find more ways to stick it to us. In fact, it looks like 2011 is going to be a banner year for tax increases. If you doubt this, just see my previous article entitled "2011: The Year Of The Tax Increase".

#5 Taking Control Of Our Businesses - Thousands Of Ridiculous Regulations


Why would anyone in America even attempt to be an entrepreneur today? Most small businesses are literally being strangled by hordes of red tape.

Just consider how things have changed in America. The Federal Register is the main source of regulations for U.S. government agencies. In 1936, the number of pages in the Federal Register was about 2,600. Today, the Federal Register is over 80,000 pages long.

The following is just one example of how bizarre things have gotten in this country. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is projecting that the food service industry will have to spend an additional 14 million hours every single year just to comply with new federal regulations that mandate that all vending machine operators and chain restaurants must label all products that they sell with a calorie count in a location visible to the consumer.

Do we really need to spend 14 million more hours telling Americans that if they keep eating hamburgers and fries that they are likely to get fat?

But it is not just the federal government that is the problem. One reader recently described how difficult it was to try to run a business in the state of California....

Had 10 employees, but one almost exclusively to deal with government regs, taxes, reporting etc, Received a $144 penalty for a .33 (yes, cents)error on my quarterly payroll taxes from Cal Franchise Tax Board. I called to ask if that was not a bit repressive, why level penalize someone for what was obvisouly a didminimus error? I was told “we would have penalized you if it was .03!” I said, I did not volunteer to be the income tax collector for the State and Fed government, you should be paying me to do all this work and insane paper pushing. Reply: “That is part of the PRIVILIGE of being a business owner!!!”

#6 Taking Control Of Our Environment - The Green Police

The government is using the "green movement" as an excuse to take an unprecedented amount of control over our lives. From coast to coast, communities have been given government grants to track our trash with RFID microchips. The following are just some of the communities that will now be using microchips to track what we throw away....

*Cleveland, Ohio

*Charlotte, North Carolina

*Alexandria, Virginia

*Boise, Idaho

*Dayton, Ohio

*Flint, Michigan

Not only that, but some cities are now starting to fine citizens for not recycling properly.

In Cleveland, Ohio if an RFID tracking chip signals that a recycle bin has not been brought out to the curb within a certain period of time, a "trash supervisor" will actually sort through the trash produced by that home for recyclables.

According to Cleveland Waste Collection Commissioner Ronnie Owens, trash bins that contain over 10 percent recyclable material will be subject to a $100 fine.

Does that sound like America to you?

Now we don't even have the freedom to throw out trash the way we want to.

#7 Taking Away Our Independence - The Exploding Welfare State

You don't have much freedom if you can't take care of yourself. But in America today, tens of millions of Americans have literally become completely dependent on the government for survival. Over 42 million Americans are now on food stamps. Approximately one out of every six Americans is enrolled in a federal anti-poverty program.

The number of Americans living in poverty has increased for three consecutive years, and the 43.6 million poor Americans in 2009 was the highest number that the U.S. Census Bureau has ever recorded in 51 years of record-keeping.

The more Americans that are destitute and totally dependent on the government the easier it will be for the government to control them. Today a rapidly growing percentage of Americans fully expect the government to take care of them. But this is not what our founders intended.

#8 Taking Away Our Patriotism - We Are Even Losing The Freedom To Be Proud Of America

Do you ever think things will get so repressive in America that a group of high school students will be forbidden from singing the national anthem at the Lincoln Memorial? Well, that has already happened. Do you think that areas of our nation will ever become so anti-American that they will forbid students from riding to school with an American flag on their bikes? Well, that has already happened.

Fortunately, there was such an uproar over what happened to 13-year-old Cody Alicea that it made national headlines and he ended up being escorted to school by hundreds of other motorcycles and bicycles - most of them displaying American flags as well. The school reversed its policy and now Cody can ride his bike to school every day proudly displaying the American flag.

But what if nobody had decided to stand up?

That school would have gotten away with banning the flag if the American people had allowed them to.

Our liberties and our freedoms are under attack from a thousand different directions and they are being stripped away from us at a blinding pace.

It has gotten to the point where most of us just sit in our homes and enjoy the "freedom" of digesting the "programming" that is constantly being hurled at us through our televisions. Of course the vast majority of that programming is produced by just 6 monolithic corporations that control almost everything that we watch, hear and read.

Power and money have become more highly concentrated in America today than ever before, and yet most Americans don't even realize it.

Most Americans are so busy just trying to survive from month to month that they don't even have time to think about the deeper issues. At the end of the night most of them are so exhausted from serving the system that all they can do is collapse on the sofa and turn on some programming.

But the American people desperately need to wake up. Without liberty and freedom our country cannot work. But our freedoms and liberties are being stripped away a little bit more each and every day.

The America that so many of us grew up adoring is dying right in front of our eyes. If you plan on saying something about it, you better do so before it is too late.

The US is taxing wealth as it subsidized poverty

By Kevin Price

The party and President "for the poor" seems committed to make sure there are more people in poverty. The Census Bureau is about to release its figures for 2009 and demographers and other policy experts are expecting some very grim numbers. In fact, the poverty levels are expected to hit levels we have not seen since the 1960s. The 1960s brought on the "War on Poverty" — the government's effort to help the poor through government subsidies (AFDC, food stamps, etc.).

According to the Census Bureau, in 1964, when the Office of Economic Opportunity was created, the number of people below poverty level was approximately 27 million. After decades of subsidizing poverty, levels reached around 40 million by the early 1990s or 15 percent of the population, which were the highest levels since the government programs on poverty began. This led to then President Bill Clinton to announce in 1995 that he intended to "end welfare as we know it." With the help of a Republican Congress, Clinton passed sweeping legislation that reduced the amount of time people could be on many government programs. Within five years poverty plummeted from the recent high of 40 million below poverty level to slightly above 30 million.

After the elections of 2008, the Obama Administration made it clear that it was committed to returning to an approach to poverty that we had not seen since before the welfare reform of the 1990s. The massive bailouts of 2009 required the states to increase welfare levels in both dollars and length of time individuals would be allowed to be on such programs, if they were to receive federal dollars. Now, many Americans have been on unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. As a result, the subsidy of poverty (therefore its encouragement) is at an all time high, while the US is about to face the largest tax increase in US history on January 1, 2011. This is creating a perfect storm of massive subsidies on poverty and huge tax increases on job creation.

The Associated Press reports that the new Census Bureau study will show "the number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels." It goes on to note that "It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power." These numbers join the highest unemployment numbers in three decades.

The 1994 elections became a referendum on Bill Clinton's economic policies and led to sweeping welfare reform. It will be interesting to see what kind of impact the 2010 elections will have on Barack Obama's approach to governing.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

New Study Questions Safety of Proposed Biodefense Laboratory

Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2010

By Martin Matishak

Global Security Newswire

This November 16 article should have stated that a calculation that there is a nearly 70 percent chance a pathogen could escape the planned Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Kansas was made by a National Research Council panel based on data from a U.S. Homeland Security Department risk assessment. The NRC panel also estimated economic losses of between $9 billion and $50 billion from a postulated foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.

WASHINGTON -- An expert panel said yesterday the U.S. Homeland Security Department has not adequately gauged the potential risks associated with a proposed multimillion-dollar infectious-disease research laboratory in Kansas (see GSN, May 20 ).

(Nov. 16) - A rendering of the U.S. National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility planned for Manhattan, Kansas. In a report issued yesterday, the National Research Council said a government safety evaluation for the proposed facility contained "several major shortcomings" (U.S. Homeland Security Department image).

There are "several major shortcomings" in a department risk assessment of its planned National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility near Manhattan, Kansas, according to a report by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The proposed site is roughly 120 miles west of Kansas City.

The facility's construction is expected to cost between $500 million and $700 million. The 520,000-square-foot center, slated to begin construction in 2012, would study highly infectious animal-borne pathogens, some of which could pose a threat to humans. It would replace the Plum Island Disease Center located near Long Island, New York, which was established in 1937.

The new site would also be the world's third Biosafety-Level 4 Pathogen laboratory to work with large animals. The other two such facilities are in Australia and Canada.

The council calculated that based on estimates in the DHS assessment, which wrapped up in June, that there is a nearly 70 percent chance a disease would escape the laboratory during its planned 50-year operational lifespan. The DHS report estimated the economic losses from a postulated foot-and-mouth disease outbreak at $9 billion to $50 billion.

However, yesterday's 146-page NRC analysis states that the actual amount could be "significantly higher" because the department's assessment did not consider the dangers associated with daily upkeep of large animal holding rooms.

The earlier evaluation was also criticized for inadequately accounting for the planned facility's proximity to Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine clinics, where large numbers of sick animals are treated, as well as the university's football stadium, which has a capacity over 55,000. The large animal and human populations at those sites would be potentially susceptible to infections with a zoonotic agent, the report states. About 9.5 percent of the entire U.S. cattle inventory is raised within 200 miles of the Manhattan site.

The DHS assessment also did not account for the lack of adequate medical care in the surrounding area to deal with a potential disease outbreak, the analysis states. There is one medical center nearby and it lacks the resources to handle such an event, according to the report.

"Building a facility that is capable of large animal work on a scale greater than other high-containment laboratories presents new and unknown risks that could not be accounted for in the DHS risk assessment because of a lack of data and experience," Ronald Atlas, who chaired the research council committee, said yesterday during a telephone press conference.

"The risk assessment should be viewed as a starting point, and given more time, it could have progressed further. As more information emerges, an updated analysis could be appropriate," said Atlas, co-director of the Center for Health Preparedness at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

Despite its critique, the newly minted report does not question the basic requirement for such a research center.

"There is a need for a facility like the NBAF to be constructed and operated in the United States," it states.

In July the Government Accountability Office released a report that said the Homeland Security Department had used "inadequate" site information in its NBAF selection process and labeled the decision to place the new facility in a natural disaster-prone state as "scientifically indefensible."

Federal auditors noted that the facility would be located in the heart of "tornado alley," a region of the country prone to tornadoes.

Based on those concerns, Congress instructed the department to complete a site-specific "biosafety and biosecurity risk assessment" of the proposed laboratory before construction funds would be obligated. Lawmakers also directed the National Research Council to conduct an independent evaluation of that study to determine its adequacy and validity.

Atlas stressed that the council evaluated the project's overall safety, not whether its location is appropriate, though the panel did take the location's risk into account during its review.

The committee made no recommendations about whether or how the project should proceed, though individual panelists yesterday offered some suggestions about how the group's concerns could be addressed.

While many of the general conclusions reached by the Homeland Security Department's risk assessment were valid, the evaluation did not fully account for how the site's BSL-3 agriculture laboratory and BSL-4 pathogen laboratory would operate; how pathogens might be released; and which animal populations might be exposed, according to Atlas.

Overall the NRC committee concluded that the government analysis lacked a "comprehensive" mitigation strategy, including an early-release detection system, for addressing major issues related to a pathogen release, he said.

The development of a contingency plan would have to be drawn up to address that concern, James Roth, a committee member and professor at the Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, told reporters.

The research council and Homeland Security agree that local and regional training for rapid responses to potential outbreaks would have to be increased, he added.

DHS spokesman Chris Ortman said the council's 70 percent calculation for a potential disease outbreak "was based on a notional facility and did not account for any of the recommended mitigation measures that DHS has committed to incorporating into the final design."

The department "will not build or operate the NBAF unless it can be done in a safe manner," he added.

Local and federal proponents of the estimated $650 million dollar project were quick to criticize the 12-member panel's findings.

The research council committee ignored standard mitigation techniques and safety redundancies incorporated into all research facilities, Ron Trewyn, vice president of research at Kansas State University, and Tom Thornton, president of the Kansas Bioscience Authority, said yesterday in a statement.

"This troubling approach is not only misleading and without precedent, it exaggerates risk to an extreme, nonsensical level that would call into question the entire American biocontainment research enterprise, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention," Trewyn said.

Meanwhile, the Sunflower State's entire six-member congressional delegation issued a joint statement saying that construction of the facility "must move forward."

The NRC study "is helpful to DHS as it continues in its design phase of the NBAF facility," said the lawmakers, five Republicans and one Democrat. "However, we are concerned that some of the findings do not seem to account for mitigation and safety plans that DHS has already said would be put in place. These efforts should not be discounted."

"We are confident this facility will be the safest research laboratory in the world and its mission is critical in order to protect our nation's food supply," the statement adds.

However, Representative Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.), whose district includes Plum Island -- home to the Plum Island Animal Disease Center -- voiced concerns about the safety and ultimate cost of the Kansas site.

“The National Research Council report confirms that DHS has not properly accounted for the significant risk that a dangerous animal pathogen could escape from NBAF into the heart of cattle country, with devastating consequences,” Bishop said today in a statement to Global Security Newswire. “DHS also has not properly accounted for the cost of the facility, which is spiraling towards a billion dollars.”

Congress budgeted $32 million last year for work on the facility. The majority of that funding is to go toward design and planning. President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal called for another $40 million for the proposed laboratory.

Atlas yesterday declined to say whether Congress should now release funds intended for the biodefense center, saying lawmakers should reach their own conclusions from the research council's study.

He and other committee members also said their analysis made no judgment on what amount of risk pertaining to the facility would be acceptable.

"We did recognize that there's a risk to not having a facility like this," Roth told reporters. "There's no zero risk. It will never be zero risk for building it and it's also not zero risk for not building it."

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Communists Organize Unemployed to Bring "Added Militancy to Street Heat" and "Allow the Obama Coalition to Regain the Initiative"

It's the 1930s all over again.

America's communists want to organize a growing army of unemployed workers into a militant force to pressure the Obama Administration into delivering a new "New Deal".

The Communist Party USA plans to recreate the communist controlled Unemployed Workers Councils of the Depression era as part of a "pressure from above, pressure from below strategy" to squeeze the American middle class into accepting more socialist controls.


Communist Party Northern California chairman Juan Lopez lays out the plan in the latest Peoples World.

"At few times in our nation's history has the cry for jobs - and the need to organize those doing the crying - been more apparent and more possible...

I believe the moment calls for the unemployed to become an organized political force unto themselves - not apart from but fighting alongside as an integral component of the organized labor movement.

No individual or movement can advocate with as much moral authority for desperately needed jobs as the jobless themselves.

By taking a direct hand in helping the unemployed organize themselves, and bringing them into the House of Labor, a much expanded organized labor movement can leverage its new-found power on the legislative, electoral, union organizing and collective bargaining fronts.

As the organized labor movement takes the legislative battles into the street, the newly organized unemployed, with little to lose and much to gain, will bring added militancy to street heat."

Lopez gives the example of a new Communist Party initiative in Chicago and calls for its replication all over the US.


Pioneering grassroots initiatives on the left like the Unemployed Workers Council recently launched by Chicago Jobs with Justice, and the Unemployed Action Center in Chicago need to be encouraged all over the country.

Then according to Lopez, the organized unemployed need to link up with labor and other forces such as the NAACP and La Raza to work for a new "New Deal".

In the 1930s, the unemployed didn't have enough allies in labor and the social movements. The communists don't plan to repeat that mistake.

Local unions, community service groups and social justice organizations are gradually being drawn into the projects, giving these formations breadth and resources with which to carry out their activities.

Such local grassroots initiatives, multiplying across the land, could help labor, community service and social justice organizations come together more fully at the regional and national levels.

While drawing lessons from the rich experience of the Unemployed Councils of the 1930s Great Depression, that gave impetus to President Roosevelt's New Deal, present formations are emerging and being shaped by today's conditions. Then, the Communist and left-inspired jobless movement had to go it alone, with little cooperation from a trade union movement whose leading trends tended to be insular and narrow-minded.

Today's organized labor movement is emerging as defender of all workers, unionized or not, and of the people generally - forcefully taking on racism, anti-immigrant hysteria, gender and other forms of discrimination so destructive of unity and social progress.

The AFL-CIO, its affiliates, related organizations, and unions in the process of rejoining it, have already shown the will and capacity to conduct coordinated campaigns reaching out to union members as well as non-union workers and their families.
Nor does the labor movement have to do this on its own.

Others in the "One Nation" coalition, like the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, can play a role.

The goal. Use the unemployed and their allies to intimidate, attack and sideline the Tea Party movement . This will clear the way for more "economic stimulus" a "green economy" and "in a much-changed political environment - a new "New Deal."

In other words, Obama's re -election in 2012, massive public works programs controlled and milked by communists and a major expansion of government power - socialism.

Working together with today's labor movement, the newly organized jobless can turn their wrath on the Republican and tea party arsenal of lies, including the boogey-man of big government and deficit spending, rather than striking out with behavior such as racism and anti-immigrant hysteria that's destructive of others, and self-destructive in the end.

Thus, they can become a potent force fighting for jobs with a new stimulus package, public works, transportation and production infrastructure, conversion to a green economy and - in a much-changed political environment - a new New Deal.
The unemployed can potentially play a pivotal role in the crucial 2012 elections and allow the Obama coalition to regain the initiative.

Instead of fighting with one hand tied behind its back, the labor movement will be able to punch back with both.

Contributing with ideas as well as financial and staffing resources, the union movement's direct engagement will make a world of difference to the desperately needed jobless movement and to labor's overall fighting capacity.

What's more - today's jobless workers, when organized, will be tomorrow's union organizers in the workplace.

It happened in the 1930s and no reason it can't happen again as jobs open up.

From dispirited victims, jobless workers can transform themselves into spirited molders of their own and the nation's destiny.

The Communist Party understands better than anyone - never let a crisis go to waste.

Will unemployed American workers become tools of the Communist Party and its "friend" Barack Obama who destroyed their jobs in the first place?

Monday, November 15, 2010

Let Curry Todd know you support him!

State Rep. Curry Todd, from right here in the Memphis area, continues to come under fire from an ungodly bunch of illegal aliens and their advocates, homosexuals, Judeo-Christians, black radicals, and liberal whites. Even Tennessee’s Head Liberal In Charge, Governor Phil Bredesen, has denounced Rep. Todd for his remarks about illegals being encouraged to multiply like rats when we not only give them free prenatal care, but pass laws saying welfare workers can’t even ask them if they’re in the country legally.

First off, when did liberals suddenly get so excited about what they normally refer to as “fetal tissue”, or a “fetus”? The black welfare worker Rep. Todd made the remark to used the term “unborn babies” and Gov. Bredesen calls them “children.” So when liberals are encouraging white Americans to get abortions, it’s “fetal tissue”, but when illegal aliens are breeding like rats on the taxpayer’s dime it’s an “unborn baby.”

Let’s hope Rep. Todd continues to defy the the mounting pressure to grovel to our invaders and issue an apology.

The local Memphis paper demanding an apology from Rep. Todd? That’s really rich. Did they demand an apology from Tennessee’s The University of the South for hosting Tim Wise, the Jewish hatemonger whose recent attack on white people was a thousand times more offensive than what Curry Todd said? No, they did not. The paper isn’t upset that Rep. Todd’s language is “negative” or “hurtful”; if they were they would have denounced The University of the South for hosting Wise. No, they’re mad because Curry Todd’s statement might wake white people up to the fact they’re being dispossessed of their own country, being turned into a minority via illegal immigration. And not only being turned into a minority in our own homeland, but being forced to pay for it, to boot.

That’s what all these groups are mad about. Like Tim Wise, they know that their victory over the hated white man is so close they can taste it. All they need is just a few more years of unhampered illegal immigration, and they can turn all of America into California. But people like Curry Todd pointing out what’s going on might upset the apple cart by waking those evil honkies up. So he has to be made an example of.

In 1970, the Hispanic population of California was around 10%; probably a bit less. White people made up 80% of the population. Now white people are 42% of the population, while Hispanics are 37%, and the white numbers are dropping fast, and the Hispanic numbers just keep rising. 48% of all births in California are to Hispanic women; over half of those women were born outside the US. Hispanics are now the majority in California’s public schools.

If you had told white Californians back in 1970 that in just 40 years they would be a minority in their own state, and that in 50 years they would make up only a third of the population, they would have laughed in your face, and told you that was impossible. We know they would’ve, because a few years later, that’s what they did. David Duke was the first to raise awareness of the illegal immigration problem in California, starting way back around 1978. He told them that if they didn’t do something, and do it soon, in a few decades they would be a minority in their own state. Did they listen to David Duke? No, they did not. They called him a racist and lots of other vile names, said he was crazy, and then went back to living “the good life.” Now they’re a minority in their own state, becoming a smaller percentage every day, their schools are now ranked 50th in the nation (they used to rank near the top), and the state is broke, with an annual deficit of $20-25 billion, because they’re trying to fund a first world system from the income taxes of a third world population of lawn mowers, strawberry pickers, dishwashers and construction workers. Now their own children are threatened with violence for having an American flag on their bike, or for wearing an American flag t-shirt.

What they did to California in just 40 years is what they want to do to the entire country. And they’re well on their way to accomplishing it. People like Curry Todd are a fly in the ointment, though. He can’t be allowed to wake people up. If he does, then illegals won’t be able to do what they did out west, breed like rats on the taxpayers dime, become the majority, and then threaten white kids for having an American flag on their bikes or shirts.

It’s important that Rep. Curry Todd not back down. Let him know you support him! Call his office at (615) 741-1866 and tell him he has nothing to apologize for and that you support him 100 percent. You can also send him a fax at (615) 532-8221.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

DOJ Gave Millions to Illegal Immigrant 'Sanctuaries,' Report Finds

By Joshua Rhett Miller

Published November 12, 2010 | FoxNews.com

The Department of Justice has spent tens of millions of dollars this year to compensate more than two dozen states, counties and cities for their costs of jailing illegal immigrants -- even though those communities have adopted policies that obstruct immigration enforcement, according to a recently released report.

"Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program," a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, found that the federal grant program commonly known as SCAAP allocated $62.2 million -- more than 15 percent of its $400 million total -- to 27 jurisdictions that are widely considered to be "sanctuary communities."

Some of those jurisdictions -- including San Francisco, Chicago and California's Santa Clara County -- are even trying to opt-out of Secure Communities, a program that automatically alerts Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials when criminal illegal immigrants are booked into jail, according to the report.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies and a co-author of the report, said that the grant system as currently structured makes little sense.

"Basically, the federal government is subsidizing through this grant program jurisdictions that on the one hand are complaining about the cost of illegal immigration and demanding reimbursement from the federal government, while at the same time they have policies in place that make their locality a magnet for illegal aliens," Vaughan told FoxNews.com.

"And that's just illogical," she said.

According to Department of Justice figures cited in the report, five of the top 10 SCAAP grants to localities and two of the top 10 grants to states went to jurisdictions that are considered sanctuaries. That includes $14.2 million to Los Angeles County, $13.4 million to New York City and $88 million to the state of California.

Rather than award SCAAP grants to jurisdictions that incur costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens, Vaughan said federal officials should use the grant program as an incentive for communities to participate in immigration enforcement programs like Secure Communities or the 287(g) program, which trains deputies to check the immigration status of individuals they arrest and has identified more than 180,000 illegal immigrants for deportation nationwide since 2006.

In a statement obtained by FoxNews.com, U.S. Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., said he disagreed with funding sanctuary cities using SCAAP grants and called on the Obama administration to take action.

"In its lawsuit challenging the Arizona immigration law, the Obama administration claims that the law creates a patchwork of immigration enforcement," Miller's statement read. "If this is the case, then the Obama administration should also sue sanctuary cities, for their policies are arguably a 'patchwork' of immigration enforcement as well. It is time for the administration to end its double standard."

To that end, Miller has authored legislation -- the Loophole Elimination and Verification Enforcement Act, or LEAVE -- that would prohibit sanctuary communities from receiving both Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security funds.

"I hope the next Congress will take up this commonsense proposal and penalize sanctuary cities for their irresponsible policies," Miller's statement concluded.

In a statement to FoxNews.com, the Department of Justice said it administers the SCAAP grants in accordance with legislation authorizing the program and passed by Congress.

"Funding under this program is provided to any eligible jurisdiction that incurs costs associated with detaining criminal aliens," the statement read. "SCAAP does not inhibit, but rather supports the accountability process by reimbursing local agency costs for detaining illegal aliens who commit crimes."

The statement continued, "Making any jurisdiction ineligible for these funds could have an unintended consequence -- creating a disincentive to detain criminals who are greater flight risks and pose a danger to our communities. The Department of Justice is committed to providing support to our state and local partners to protect the safety of communities."

Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, suggested that the number of sanctuary communities would reduce significantly if the DOJ grants were discontinued.

"One of the best fixes is to deny state and federal funding to the places that harbor illegal aliens," Dane said. "The entire country is slowly but surely moving from a sanctuary mentality to a 'fix it' mentality, but you've got these remaining pockets of resistance, many of them in big cities."

Dane continued, "You hit 'em where it hurts, in the wallet, and maybe they'll get it. We're reimbursing cities for a problem of their own making."

Obama Praises "Toleration" as Indonesian Christian Churches Burn

Written by James Heiser
Thursday, 11 November 2010 08:37

President Obama’s return to Indonesia, the nation where he spent four years of his childhood, has brought further confusion regarding the response of his administration to the ideology of Islam. Obama’s tortuous equivocations in Mumbai, India, as he responded to a simple question — “What is your opinion of Jihad?” — raised again the specter of Islam that has haunted his administration. Among other points, as noted by CBS News, the visit to Jakarta emphasized the ambiguity of the childhood faith of Barry Sotero (the President’s childhood name):

When he arrived in Indonesia at age 6, he first enrolled in the St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School. The headmaster at the school showed CBS News the documents — that "Muslim" was filled in under "religion" in his enrollment papers. School officials say it was standard practice to give the religion of a student's father, and young Barry's stepfather was a Muslim.

But it has led some to suggest, erroneously, that the president is a Muslim, even though he's been a practicing Christian for decades.

However, the comments of President Obama concerning Islam, the dominant religion in Indonesia, are of far greater significance than any speculations regarding his childhood beliefs. Astoundingly, Obama compared Indonesia (a nation that has only recently begun to emerge from being an unabashed dictatorship) to the United States, declaring that the two nations share a spirit of toleration. As Scott Wilson wrote for the Washington Post:

He also praised Indonesia — the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation — for a "spirit of tolerance that is written into your constitution, symbolized in your mosques and churches and temples, and embodied in your people," a quality worthy for all the world to emulate.

Obama received a warm welcome from the crowd of about 6,500 at the University of Indonesia, particularly when he spoke in Indonesian, as when he recalled buying satay and bakso from street vendors or referenced the national motto, "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika," or "Unity in Diversity."

"We are two nations which have traveled different paths. Yet our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag," Obama said.

For those Christians whose experience of Indonesian "toleration" is not limited to childhood memories, Obama’s words are likely to elicit sorrow and pain. According to the Jakarta Christian Communication Forum (FKKJ), religious violence has been on the increase since Indonesian independence, and Christians have been the target of much of that violence. According to an October 26 report at Persecution.org:

The latest violent incident occurred in Sukoharjo, Central Java, on Oct. 13, when 12 people on motorcycles set fire to a Protestant church, said Theophilus Bella of the Jakarta Christian Communication Forum (FKKJ), which documents sectarian violence in Indonesia. A day before, an attempt to set fire to St. Joseph Catholic church in Klaten, Central Java, was foiled and caused only minor damage, he said in a report made available to The Jakarta Post. On Oct. 17, radical Muslims threatened to attack a Catholic church in Karanganyar, Central Java.

Last month, an unidentified group attacked a Catholic church in Pasir regency, East Kalimantan, it said.

Most of the incidents over the last several years took place in Greater Jakarta and West Java, including attacks and forcible church closures that occurred with little or no intervention from the government, the report said....

The FKKJ said religious violence in Indonesia has escalated since the country gained independence in 1945.

Between 1945 and 1967, two churches were set on fire. Between 1967 and 1969, after former president Soeharto took power, 10 attacks were recorded.

Church attacks soared to 460 between 1969 and 1998, after Soeharto’s government issued a joint ministerial decree on establishing places of worship, which was seen as favoring the nation’s Muslim majority.

After the start of the reform era in 1998, the number of cases skyrocketed to 700, bringing the total number of church attacks between 1945 and 2010 to 1,200.

“It’s not wrong to say that Indonesia is the world champion of church burnings,” Theophilus said.

Catholic priest Benny Susetyo, executive secretary of the Indonesian Bishops’ Council, said that the attacks were due to weak law enforcement.

“Terror has increased due to negligence on the part of law enforcement officials,” he said. Benny added that violence against the churches had continued since perpetrators could act with impunity.

It is hard to imagine that President Obama would be praising the tolerance of a Christian nation if it had witnessed the burning of 700 mosques since 1998. However, Obama would search the nations of the West in vain to find one in which violent religious bigotry is tolerated the way it is alleged to have been in Indonesia. When a mosque was burned in Serbia in 2004, eight men were arrested, tried for, and found guilty of, the crime. When a fire damaged equipment at the construction site of an Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee this year, officials offered a $20,000 reward for information regarding the perpetrators, and the FBI considered investigating the incident as a hate crime.

The United States and Indonesia are certainly traveling different paths, and contrary to Obama’s "spin," the history of the two nations regarding the relationship between Christians and Muslims and the experience of "religious tolerance" is vastly different. On the eve of Veterans Day, the President's comparison is an offense to the memory of those men and women who have given their lives in defense of a Constitution that enshrines freedom of religion among our most sacred enumerated rights.

Planned Parenthood Got $349.6 Million in Tax Dollars, Performed 324,008 Abortions, Paid Its President $385,163

Thursday, November 11, 2010
By Penny Starr

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards (AP photo/Ron Edmonds).

(CNSNews.com) - Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in tax dollars in the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2008, and it paid its president, Cecile Richards, $385,163, plus another $11,876 in benefits and deferred compensation.

According to a “fact sheet” published by the organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers performed 324,008 abortions in 2008.

Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 is the latest year for which the organization has publicly released an annual report and published the annual sum of grants and contracts it received from the government.

The $385,163 in pay Planned Parenthood President Richards received in the organization’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 was recorded in the group’s publicly available Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filed for that year.

Richards also received $346,285 in total compensation from Planned Parenthood and $38,476 in total compensation from related groups in the organization’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according to the organization’s Form 990 for that year.

Planned Parenthood did not respond to repeated inquiries from CNSNews.com about Cecile Richards’ compensation.

In January 2009, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers that receive taxpayer funding. His bill, H.R. 614, would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit “providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs an abortion.”

“Congressman Pence will continue to fight for the unborn and intends to reintroduce his legislation to defund Planned Parenthood this coming Congress,” Mary Vought, press secretary for the House Republican Congress, told CNSNews.com.

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Jan. 21, 2009 where it has since languished.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Joe Biden update: The VP meets on government transparency today. But that meeting is closed

With President Obama out of the country tweaking things in Asia, carefully not bowing this time, and packing away some pista murg and balak papri chat, his trusty sidekick Joe Biden is left to find things to do back home.

There's a big Diwali party tonight at the White House. The vice president will be there.

But first, JB has a breakfast meeting with Sen. Chuck Hagel and then another one of those Middle Class Task Force events to try to find some of those thousands of missing green energy jobs that have been promised so often.

Joe's had some problems with promises recently. He assured everyone that last summer would be full of economic recovery. Which it wasn't. And Joe guaranteed that his Democratic Party would maintain majorities in both houses of Congress in last week's midterm election. Which it didn't.

Possibly the most important event of the vice president's day Tuesday is to meet at 2:15 with Earl Devaney. Everyone knows him as chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board -- the top guy monitoring the gazillion-dollar stimulus and the overdue economic recovery, and ensuring that the taxpayers financing same know all about it.

However, no one outside the room will know what goes on in that Biden-Devaney meeting. That's because the government meeting on government transparency has been closed.

Monday, November 8, 2010

The Price Of Oil Is Going Up, The Price Of Food Is Going Up And Now Here Comes Quantitative Easing

Millions of American families are about to be broadsided by rising gas and food prices and most of them don't even realize it. You see, most Americans stop listening when terms such as "quantitative easing" and "agricultural commodities" are brought up, but when millions more Americans are faced with a choice of either feeding their families or heating their homes this winter, maybe then they will start listening. Even before the Federal Reserve announced the latest round of quantitative easing, the price of oil has been going up and the price of food has been going up. Now that the Federal Reserve has announced plans to flood the economy with hundreds of billions more dollars, the inflation monster is going to get even hungrier. The household budgets of scores of American families are going to be stretched beyond the breaking point as prices rise. Meanwhile, the vast majority of U.S. employers will not be giving their workers raises to keep up with inflation. After all, why should they? If someone wants to quit there are hordes of unemployed Americans out there who would just love to take that job in a second.

Quantitative easing is being heralded as the solution to America's economic problems, but for hard working middle class Americans it is only going to make things worse. Inflation is going to soar while wages are going to stagnate at best. This will mean a lower standard of living for average Americans.

The kind of "trickle down" economics that the Federal Reserve is trying to play does not work in 2010. The advocates of quantitative easing believe that by flooding the financial system with massive amounts of new money, banks will eventually start lending it out to average Americans and that will spark an increase in economic activity.

But that is not the way the game is played in 2010. What happened with the bailouts and what happened with the last round of quantitative easing is that the big financial institutions took most of that cash and used it to pump up speculative bubbles all over the globe.

For example, Brazil's stock market has more than doubled since the beginning of 2009. Needless to say, it was foreign speculation that drove most of that activity.

Another place where we are seeing bubbles develop is in the commodities markets.

On Thursday, the price of oil topped 86 dollars a barrel. In fact, the price of oil has gained more than 6 percent just this week.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that believe that the price of oil is going to go a lot higher.

Lawrence Eagles, a top analyst at JP Morgan, recently caused waves when he speculated that oil could hit 100 dollars a barrel "much sooner than we expect".

OPEC Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri recently said that oil at $90 a barrel would not be a bad thing for the world economy.

Libya’s National Oil Corporation chairman Shokri Ghanem recently declared that his nation "would love to see $100 a barrel". In fact, there are quite a few OPEC officials that are publicly discussing the possibility of 100 dollar oil.

As the price of oil goes up, the price of thousands of other products will also go up.

Why?

Well, anything that must be transported is affected by the price of oil. So a significant rise in the price of oil will have a cascading impact throughout the economy.

But it is not just oil that is moving up in price. As the dollar has declined in 2010, prices for many important agricultural commodities have soared into the stratosphere.

A recent article on the Forbes website noted just a few of the key agricultural commodities that have absolutely skyrocketed this year....

Here’s what’s happened to some key farm commodities so far in 2010…

•Corn: Up 63%
•Wheat: Up 84%
•Soybeans: Up 24%
•Sugar: Up 55%

Anyone who believes that these commodity price increases are not going to be passed on to U.S. consumers is delusional. Literally thousands of food products are about to go up in price.

The rapid rise of some of these commodities has been nothing less than shocking. For example, the price of wheat soared from 158 dollars per ton in June to 271 dollars per ton in September.

That was a 71 percent increase in just a couple of months.

Just think about how many food products contain wheat.

This is quickly becoming very serious.

Now the Federal Reserve is going to be swamping the economy with hundreds of billions of dollars of new money.

So how much of that money do you think is going to end up in your hands?

When new dollars are introduced into the financial system, the value of all existing dollars goes down.

Soon your dollars are not going to go nearly as far as they did before.

Already we are starting to see some very troubling signs of inflation in the economy. For example, UPS has just announced that they are raising shipping rates by 4.9 percent.

Expect hordes of companies to announce price increases over the coming months. But with millions of Americans still unemployed, don't expect wage increases to follow. In fact, total wages, median wages, and average wages all declined in the United States in 2009.

We are entering a time that is going to be very difficult on most American families. Many are going to really have to tighten their belts to make it through this. Many others are simply not going to make it and will need our help.

The "good times" that we have been experiencing in America for decades are about to come to an end. All of the debt and all of the greed are catching up with us. A devastating financial collapse is coming and you had better get ready.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Bankruptcy of U.S. is ‘Mathematical Certainty,’ Says Former CEO of Nation's 10th Largest Bank

John Allison, who for two decades served as chairman and CEO of BB&T, the nation's 10th largest bank, told CNSNews.com it is a “mathematical certainty” that the United States government will go bankrupt unless it dramatically changes its fiscal direction.

Allison likened what he sees as the predictable future bankruptcy of the United States to the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose insolvency he also said was foreseeable to those who studied their business practices and financial situation.

“I think the first thing we have to realize is where we’re going and to face it objectively,” Allison told CNSNews.com, when asked about the trillion-dollar-plus deficits the federal government has run for three straight years, the more than $13 trillion in federal debt, and the $61.9 trillion long-term shortfall the government faces (according to the analysis of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation) if the government is to pay all the benefits it has promised through entitlement programs.

“If you run the numbers, on all those numbers that you just talked about, which I think are accurate, very accurate, in 20 or 25 years, the United States goes bankrupt,” said Allison. “It’s a mathematical certainty.

“It reminds me very much of that story I told you about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,” said Allison. “We were running the numbers, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae went bankrupt, and we got there. In 20 or 25 years, the United States goes bankrupt.

“Now, countries don’t go bankrupt the way companies do,” said Allison. “They don’t file bankruptcy. They usually hyper-inflate. They print a bunch of paper money, or they become Third World economies like Argentina--unless we change direction. So, we absolutely have to change direction. And the irony of that is it requires an interesting combination. It requires both discipline, but it also requires a focus on growing our economy. And it means a fundamental philosophical change from where we are today, from the idea of redistributing wealth to the idea of creating wealth.”

In his interview with CNSNews.com Allison said that when belonged to the Financial Services Roundtable they examined Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and determined they were going bankrupt. Congressional leaders, however, did not heed their analysis.

“I was on a committee, a Financial Services Roundtable, for nine years trying to do something about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,” said Allison.

“You couldn’t help but see it coming,” he said. “You ran the numbers, particularly the last several years, and it was mathematically certain Freddie and Fannie were going bankrupt.”

“We met with Congress. We met with [House Financial Services Chairman] Barney Frank and [Senate Banking Chairman] Chris Dodd and they absolutely wouldn’t see it,” said Allison.

Allison became president of BB&T in 1987 and was elected chairman in 1989. He remained CEO through 2008. He is now distinguished professor of practice at the Wake Forest University Schools of Business. By 2009, according to rankings done by SNL Financial, BB&T had grown into the nation's 10th largest bank.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Progressives Increase Their Power Over Obama

By Cliff Kincaid November 4, 2010 6:41 AM

While the Democratic Party suffered a bloodbath on November 2, the progressives who basically run the party and control President Obama came out of the elections stronger than ever. They will keep the political pressure on Obama to pursue a far-left agenda, with the implied threat that if he doesn't comply, he will have a 2012 presidential primary election challenger. The progressives know Obama's secrets, having backed him since he joined with them in the Chicago New Party, a means by which they moved the Democratic Party to the left.

Glenn Beck on Fox News says that a few progressives managed to survive somehow. In fact, Karen Dolan of the far-left Institute for Policy Studies proudly notes that "the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members"--Reps. Alan Grayson (Fla.), John Hall (N.Y.) and Phil Hare (Ill.). By contrast, as noted by Jim Dean of Democracy of America, only 47 percent of the so-called conservative Blue Dog Democrats won their races.

All of this means that the Democratic Party has moved further to the left, which is exactly where Obama wants it to go. The electoral "shellacking" he talks about came mostly at the expense of the moderate and conservative elements of the party. He never cared about them.

The progressive victories virtually guarantee that Obama, despite his conciliatory talk at his news conference on Wednesday, will not compromise with the House Republican majority. He will instead count on his base and their media allies to put pressure on the GOP to compromise with their leftist agenda or else be branded as obstructionists.

The lesson is not just that the Democratic Party in the House has become more "liberal," as media pundits like to say, but more "progressive" in a far-left sense. The new head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is expected to be Rep. Keith Ellison, the leftist Muslim Democrat from Minnesota. He has already sent a letter appealing for the post.

Some of the pundits are missing the point completely. Democratic Party operative and Fox News contributor Joe Trippi says that the "GOP sweep of at least 60 seats in the House removed some of the most moderate Democrats and replaced them with more conservative, and in many cases Tea Party Republicans. This means that Barack Obama will have to try to compromise and solve some very tough problems with a more polarized and divided House."

But while the Republicans are more conservative, the Democrats are far more liberal. If Obama compromises with the Republicans, he risks the wrath of the more powerful Progressive Caucus, which is where his heart lies anyway. For example, Obama has long had a close personal relationship with Rep. Barbara Lee, the pro-Castro Oakland Democrat who has headed the Progressive Caucus and the Black Caucus and was once a secret member of the Communist Party spin-off, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

On the surface, it does look bad for the President. Making the threat against Obama overt, Rob Kall at the left-wing website OpEdNews.com declared, "Obama deserves to be primaried and replaced. He has failed as a leader in so many ways--horrible appointees, weak, inadequate responses to crises, inability to handle the military. It is not a matter of giving him enough time. He failed to deliver on his campaign promises, not just the issue or action kinds, but most important, as a leader. He has shown himself to be weak, ineffective, with poor judgments and inadequate strength to do the job."

Such threats are possible because of the far-left drift of the Democratic Party, which has become more pronounced with the November 2 results. But these threats are just for show.

If Obama is somehow forced to accept variations of Republican policies that are perceived to be surrender on his part, he could still come out a winner. As Sam Webb of the Communist Party USA puts it, "Don't be surprised when many who voted for the Republicans become disillusioned with their policies, and on this ground a bigger and broader people's movement will emerge."

So this may be the game plan: create the impression that the Republicans are really in charge and hold them responsible for whatever results from Washington policy-making. They seem to be assuming that budget cuts of some kind will be enacted, leading to the spectacle of the GOP being accused of putting "profits over people," as union organizers and left-wing activists take to the streets in protest. And Obama in his news conference already set the Republicans up, blaming them in advance for proposing to alter a health care plan that he says provides real benefits to real people.

You can see it now: Republicans being blamed in the media for taking benefits away from people with real needs. The GOP will be depicted as the front men for greedy insurance companies.

The irony is that conservative sentiment is at record highs. Exit polls from the 2010 elections showed that 41 percent of voters identified themselves as conservatives, with only 20 percent calling themselves liberals and 39 percent identifying as moderates. That compares to only 32 percent calling themselves conservative in the exit polls from the 2006 midterm elections and 34 percent conservative in 2008.

While conservatives have always had to go up against a much smaller number of liberals, it is the influence of the progressives and their strategic location--in such power centers as the media and academia--that gives them the strategic advantage. Now, with their power in the Democratic Party more concentrated than ever, they are relishing a fight they think they can win. Obama is one of them, and they know it.