How dare those plebs question the grand wisdom of congress and the president! Please report these "fishy" people to the white house at once!
I cannot believe the NERVE of these common folks getting in the way of our vaunted congress and president and protest health care reform. According to our glorious liberal leaders this rabble is simply people "who may be funded by industry interest groups." Do not take them seriously! Our leadership knows what is best for us, because we are too stupid to think for ourselves.
It is DISGUSTING to see how these people act. According to Nancy Pelosi these common rabble folks are carrying swastikas.
All of this protesting is manufactured rage brought to you by the the insurance companies who are putting plants into these town hall meetings. You'd think the Republicans are committing manufactured outrage by busing people into these town hall meetings, hiring rent-a-mobs, and doing community organizing! This is just AstroTurf. This is not any sort of grass roots effort in any way, shape, or form! The liberals have NEVER resorted to rent-a-mobs to push their agenda. Never would ACORN, Service Employees International Union, National Council of La Raza, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), AFLCIO, Code Pink, or those hooded sweat shirt bandanna wearing "pranksters" throwing molotov cocktails and burning the American flag resort to ANY of those methods!
Barbara Boxer says this is ALL planned, so it IS TRUE!
Liberal organizations have NEVER sent rent-a-mobs anywhere to push their agendas, attended town hall meetings out of their district, or worked to get people outraged on a pressing issues.
Liberals would NEVER do such things, and the demonization of these people at these town hall meetings in necessary because liberal politicians so it is so! The position of a Senator, Congressmen, or President is something to be revered and not questioned!
Also, how dare you distribute a picture of Obama as the joker! You are to respect the president. Liberals would never have portrayed Bush in such light, or protested Bush policy with such venomous nastiness!
I order to squelch these rabble rousers, the white house has officially reacted!
The White House is asking for our help. There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since the White House can't keep track of all of them, they are asking for our help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems a gross distortion or inaccurate, please take a moment and send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
In the above video, Linda Douglass, the Communications Director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth. http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/8/4/163850/9912
There you have your official notification from the most powerful office in this country to encourage snitching on those "un-American" people who dissent and spread misinformation about the Obama health care policy. Even though many of the liberal politicians didn't care to actually read the proposed legislation, they do not need to be questioned and know what is good for the people in general.
In addition, liberal groups would never resort to such hateful tactics! They never did anything like you see at those town hall meetings during the Bush years...NEVER!
The plebs at the these town hall meetings need to sit down and shut up! They need to stop this un-American dissent and take their health care reform as the government presents it!
Town Hall Protester Responds To "Mob" Smears By DNC
The below article kind of makes me think, “are they ALREADY out of ideas?” While I completely agree that Bush policy certainly contributed to this mess we are in, there is no excuse for the Obama administration to consider this an effective means of resolving the overall economic crisis we are in. Playing the blame game does not produce jobs, raise confidence in the market place, or get banks to make loans.
The issue is many of the liberal democrats who blamed Bush for every wrong doing imaginable, they are still trying to feed their Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) addiction. The withdrawal must be very painful for them, so they need to scrape every little bit left that they can get. To explain BDS, Wikipedia states it as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”
While Reagan blamed Carter for many of the problems that he inherited, I don't think that it was the policy of his administration to blame Carter if their policy decisions failed.
What is utterly laughable about Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon calling blaming Bush an effective strategy, Joseph Curl brings up a good refutation of her use of approval ratings. What strikes me is Liz Chadderdon's blatant arrogance in stating voters have short memories. There is no distinction between some or all. So basically me, a voter, cannot remember anything, and it's up to the liberal politicians to tell me what to think because I won't remember it based on assumption. She's wrong about "Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07." It has been going on since claims that Bush stole the election in 2000, since day one. If "why not use it [Bush Bashing]" is the best strategy that the Democratic Party representatives come up with, they ARE the party of fail. I think that Liz Chadderdon should consider something more serious, such as work towards resolution of these serious economic issues given her skill set as a strategist.
Obama still cashing in on Bush's failings Joseph Curl
Facing the first real rough patch of his presidency, President Obama and his supporters are once again resorting to a tried-and-true tactic: attacking George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
In his White House press conference last week, Mr. Obama referred to the Bush era at least nine times, three times lamenting that he "inherited" a $1.3 trillion debt that has set back his administration's efforts to fix the economy.
With the former president lying low in Dallas, largely focused on crafting his memoirs, Mr. Obama has increasingly attempted to exploit Mr. Bush when discussing the weak economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the difficulty closing the military prison at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As he took power, Mr. Obama promised a "new era of responsibility" that would transcend partisan politics.
"For a guy who campaigned on taking responsibility and looking forward, he spends an awful lot of time pointing fingers and looking backward," said former Bush deputy press secretary Tony Fratto, who has begun defending the previous administration.
But Democrats think Mr. Obama would be remiss if he did not point out what he inherited.
"I'm not convinced that Obama and his supporters are bashing Bush as much as they are quite rightfully reminding people that our current economic mess and the wars were inherited from the Bush administration," said Democratic strategist Bud Jackson. "It's important to remind people of this because Republicans are now criticizing the Obama administration as if they had no role in how we got here."
Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective.
"I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months."
Mixed feelings among voters about health care reform have shaken the president's approval ratings from the high poll numbers when he took office. Six months into his term, 30 percent of the nation's voters "strongly approve" of Mr. Obama's job performance, according to a survey released Monday by the Rasmussen polling organization.
The poll showed that 40 percent "strongly disapprove" of the president's performance, marking the first time the disparity has reached double digits.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama has implemented a $787 billion stimulus package that has failed to produce a quick economic turnaround and the U.S. economy has shed more than 2.5 million jobs.
Mr. Obama hardly ever refers to Mr. Bush by name. In fact, his Web site, whitehouse.gov, recently scrubbed the name of the former president out of a reference to Hurricane Katrina, which once read: "President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."
Now, the "President Bush" is gone.
Although Mr. Obama's effort is subtle, his rhetoric is clear. On his first trip overseas, Mr. Obama referred to Mr. Bush's foreign policy and said the United States has "shown arrogance" and been "dismissive, even derisive." He said decisions of the past had "lowered our standing in the world."
"There are some mornings I read the news and feel like it's January 2009 -- there are so many stories making the front page about things that President Bush thought about and didn't do," said former White House press secretary Dana Perino. "I find it hard to believe that there aren't more interesting stories affecting Americans in the here and now that can garner that kind of space. But the obsession continues unabated."
Even when asserting his responsibility for addressing the nation's problems, Mr. Obama manages to highlight that he was left to deal with others' missteps.
At a town-hall meeting this month in Michigan -- the state with the nation's highest jobless rate -- Mr. Obama said that fixing the economy is "a job I gladly accept."
But he added, "I love these folks who helped get us in this mess. And then suddenly say, 'Oh, this is Obama's economy.'"
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill Monday that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others.
The bill, H. Res. 615, says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should become the inaugural customers of government-run health-care.
“That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option,” the resolution reads.
Fleming said he offered the non-binding resolution after he found out that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress and other federal government employees will not have to participate in the planned health insurance exchanges for at least five years.
After five years, they still do not have to participate in the exchanges if they do not want to, while every other American must have a plan that conforms to the government’s rules, Fleming added.
“It’ll be at least five years after passage until a congressperson can – at least – opt in to the [government] system, and then it doesn’t force them to do that – it just allows them to do that,” Fleming told CNSNews.com.
“I think that the job of a congressman is to represent his people,” he said. “How can you honestly represent your people when you’re not dealing with the same problems and issues and decision-making that others do?”
Fleming said his bill would address the public perception that Congress doesn’t like to play by its own rules, exempting itself from the downsides of the “reforms” it says we all need.
“I think there is a very deep sense in the electorate, which I think is accurate, that Congress tends to exempt itself from the very policies that it creates,” said Fleming. “You have to believe that if Congress exempts itself or has an option that doesn’t force members into the same kind of plans [the public is required to have], then it’s, again, ‘What’s good for the goose is not necessarily what’s good for the gander’.”
Fleming said that if a public option does come to the floor, he plans to offer an amendment that would require, rather than simply encourage, members of Congress to enroll in the government plan.
“When the bill actually comes to floor – if it contains a single-payer option – then we plan to add an amendment that says that, there being a single-payer option, members of Congress will forgo their ability to opt into the federal program and that they will take the same single-payer option that most Americans will end up with,” said Fleming.
The “federal program” Fleming referred to is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which is available to all federal government employees, including members of Congress and their staffs.
It is essentially a health insurance pool that offers hundreds of different private insurance plans that conform to limited rules. Because all federal agencies and both houses of Congress participate in the pool, the benefits are quite good, better than those offered under many private plans because health care costs do not affect the government’s bottom line.
Fleming, a physician, said that private insurance is not without its problems and he agrees that the market needs to be reformed, but he also said that a government-run health system would make the problems worse.
“Already, we’re in a tremendous bureaucracy, red tape like we’ve never seen before both for Medicare and Medicaid and for private insurance,” he said. “Private insurance uses Medicare as kind of a template for what it does, so even private insurance as it exists today has a lot of red tape and issues. It’s not as bad as the government system, and it can be improved.
“We definitely need reform,” said Fleming. “What we need to do is have insurance reform by bringing in younger people and giving them incentives to opt in to the system. We need to reform insurance laws and do away with pre-existing illness [limitations], which is keeping a lot of people out of coverage.
“We need to provide subsidies to those who have marginal incomes,” Fleming continued. “They need portability, they need to be able to buy the insurance directly without the employer, and it all needs to be tax-deductible.”
I found this article rather interesting, describing how this theory is being applied to the insane spending that the democrats are doing in the name of economic recovery. What is cause for concern is the fundamentals of Cloward/Piven derive from 60s radical left ideology, and is seemingly embraced by the liberals in government.
For a Monday morning snort-starter, check out the video via Newsbusters of African journalist Nkepile Mabuse fact-checking anchor Don Lemon over the weekend. Aptly named. Lemon certainly looked like he had swallowed something sour after Mabuse rejected his obsequious suggestion that President Obama’s warm welcome was somehow “unprecedented.”
All info thanks to Michelle Malkin's website. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/13/african-journalist-makes-cnn-obama-cheerleader-look-really-really-stupid/
The Obama fluffer idea comes from this bit of news coverage:
Chris Matthews love affair with everything to do about Obama and damn anyone who opposes him makes him an Obama fluffer. Fluffer? What's that? According to wikipedia a fluffer is a hired member of the crew of a pornographic movie whose role on the set is to sexually arouse the male participants prior to the filming of scenes requiring erections.[1] Today, many adult film stars[who?] maintain that fluffers are a thing of the past, needed in the 1970s and 1980s when the crew, shooting on celluloid, needed much more time to prepare a shot. Erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra have also played a part in replacing fluffers.
A fluffer also has the duty of keeping adult film stars "cleaned up" in between takes or during photo shoot set-ups, so that the actors or models do not have to move from their positions. These duties are considered part of the makeup department. After setting up the desired angle, the director asks the actors to hold position and calls for the fluffer to "fluff" the actors for the shot.
So Chris Matthews is an Obama Fluffer, though I might need to change that to something more in the general, maybe a liberal fluffer? In this latest video he has that chill again. Nice objectivity Chris Matthews, you douche.
Why is he such a douche? He is a partisan talking head who pretends to not have an agenda to push. I know everyone has an agenda, but Chris Matthews needs to do some research on ethical journalism and Edward R. Murrow's career. Partisan hacks are boring to watch on TV.
I heard on a radio show when a woman called in talking about being on a DNC or Obama campaign mailing list. She was talking about receiving about 6 e-mails a week requesting $5 or $10 contributions to their organization. I get a decent enough mail from all political organizations asking for $5 or $10 as well, so that's not too big a deal.
The interesting thing is that the woman mentions that she received no e-mail from this "Obama mailing list" wishing the recipient (her in this case) a happy 4th or July or Independence Day. I thought this was a little seedy. I did a little checking and found this:
http://www.truthout.org/070409Z
So I just think that the organization was closed or might not have been an "official" aspect of the Obama administration, different from the Obama campaign. All I know is I get a lot of mail for various causes, I will sign a petition or two and send it back with my stamp, but I rarely contribute money. Online, though, I might contribute some cash from time to time. They have made things very easy to do so. I don't mind the letters in the mail, but it certainly adds to my recycle bin.
Seeing how we have a Democratic majority in the branches of Government, the Democrats are certainly the status quo now. I was wondering why there is story after story focusing on Palin with such contempt to anything that she does from the lib-tard press. Here are a few good examples: Republican pundits open fire on Sarah Palin http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-palin-gop13-2009jul13,0,2642211.story
Missteps, ignored advice on Palin’s route to exit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31886324/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
This is an interesting story on the matter, that does well to explain it.
Sarah Palin Terrifies the Left & The Emperor Has No Clothes
Vanity Fair is the latest media hit on Gov. Palin – in an article that is full of unsubstantiated accusations, innuendo, bald faced lies, un-nameable “sources,” secret informers, etc etc etc – in other words, it was a “hit piece,” meant to savage the Governor through the implication that she is nothing short of an unstable Satan.
Why is the left obsesessed with Palin? She is demonized by the left regularly – she is a lightening rod for their hatred, and we all know the left is consumed with hatred – hatred for opposing viewpoints (Carrie Prejean as a case in point), hatred for what they consider to be stupid people – and under that heading falls anyone with whom they disagree, plus people of faith, people who have values of honesty, humility, truth, compassion, etc.
The left does not value anything, it seems, but arrogance, hubris, elitist smugness, their version of intelligence, etc. God offends the left. Christian principles offend the left. People of faith offend the left. Gun owners offend the left. And you know an attractive, gun-owning, Christian, conservative female INFURIATES the left because they are quite threatened by her. So they mock her constantly. That is their weapon – mock, viciously and personally attack, silence anyone, particularly a genuine threat to their agenda. Their hatred and their tactics are sickening.
Sarah Palin has, undoubtedly, some growing to do – but give the left credit for recognizing the tremendous potential of the woman to seize the national stage, turn DC on its ear, and launch a true Second Reagan Revolution. She has all the raw materials, and the left knows that after refinement, Governor Palin will be an unstoppable locomotive that will come crashing through their phony facade, capture the imagination and the adoration of the American people and, by comparison to Obama, make the people realize that the Emperor has no clothes.
This is why the crazy left is still going crazy on Sarah Palin. Senator McCain’s biggest accomplishment and contribution to his country may well turn out to be his pick of Governor Palin as his running mate in 2008. The crazy left is terrified of this woman. And when they’re terrified, they get even more despicable in their attacks.
The National Organization for Women is of course silent on all of the personal, beyond the pale, vicious attacks on Palin – because she is not a LIBERAL woman. NOW is actually NOFLWO – National Organization for Liberal Women Only – the hypocrisy of NOFLWO is so self evident with their deafening silence on the Palin attacks.
Certainly the loon eruptions from the left will continue – until and unless they succeed in marginalizing her – as long as their attacks continue, we know they still fear her. And how sweet it is to wield that power over these nuts from the left.
I was reading Bernard Goldberg's bestseller "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America," and discovered #51 on the list, Ann Pelo. Ann Pelo is a lefty teacher who taught at HilltopChildren's Center in Seattle. Also, she is known for her writings in "That's Not Fair!: A Teacher's Guide to Activism with Young Children." I can see why she made the list in "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America." It amazes me how parents let a woman like this use kids as the basis for her social experiments. Then again, the location of the school "is located in an affluent Seattle neighborhood, and, with only a few exceptions, the staff and families are white; the families are upper-middle class and socially liberal."
Bernard Goldberg's book points her out as a loony toon very well with her description of the Navy's Blue Angels. A Michelle Malkin article gives a little more detail, but follows the reason of Bernard Goldberg giving Pelo #51 in his book.
"According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), which oversees preschool teacher training, curriculum standards, and daycare accreditation, "That's Not Fair! A Teacher's Guide to Activism with Young Children" is "an exciting and informative" resource for "developing community-building, deep thinking, and partnership.to change the world for the better." On page 106 of the guide, co-author Ann Pelo details an activism project she initiated at a Seattle preschool after her students spotted a Blue Angels rehearsal overhead as they played in a local park. "Those are Navy airplanes," Pelo lectured the toddlers. "They're built for war, but right now, there is no war, so the pilots learn how to do fancy tricks in their planes." The kids returned to playing, but Pelo wouldn't let it rest.
The next day she pushes the children to "communicate their feelings about the Blue Angels." Pelo proudly describes her precociously politicized students' handiwork: "They drew pictures of planes with Xs through them: 'This is a crossed-off bombing plane.' They drew bomb factories labeled: 'No.' "Respect our words, Blue Angels. Respect kids' words. Don't kill people." "If you blow up our city, we won't be happy about it. And our whole city will be destroyed. And if you blow up my favorite library, I won't be happy because there are some good books there that I haven't read yet.
Pelo reports that the children "poured out their strong feelings about the Blue Angels in their messages and seemed relieved and relaxed." But it's obvious this cathartic exercise was less for the children and more for the ax-grinding Pelo, who readily admits that she "didn't ask for parents' input about their letter-writing - she didn't genuinely want it. She felt passionately that they had done the right thing, and she wasn't interested in hearing otherwise." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin041603.asp
Another example, this article shows her using legos to teach collective collaboration, team work, fairness, and sharing (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml). While those values are good, the disturbing aspect of this study is her politicizing such things in her writings. While the aspect of wealth and limited resources are practical exercises, the part that I find rather troublesome is the tone of her damning competition, private ownership, and those with "power." That power is emphasized as the haves and have nots. The article goes to say, "We also discussed our beliefs about our role as teachers in raising political issues with young children. We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children's understandings from a perspective of social justice."
Ultimately, what shocks me the most about "Why We Banned Legos" is that it's a part of a long list of contributions to the decline in our education system when compared to other countries. I found a decent example of that information here: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/08/education-united-states-compared-to.html, which goes into some statistical and projection metrics. While children are very young it's good to know about sharing and team collaboration working on something. Also, by Palo damning individual ownership and power, she fails to emphasize the importance of competition. I am no advocate of economic inequality, but I am a firm believer that from inequality comes the drive and motivation to strive to make one's life better. On a side note, I kind of smirk a little when I think about competition is an inherent human trait, and Palo is contradicting our very nature with her extreme outlook on what she's trying to teach these children.
I cannot help but think about this scene from "Wall Street"...
While Gordon Gecko from the movie goes to the extremes of glorifying 80s excess, there is an underlying tone that is very important. While raw greed itself is not inherently a good thing, and history does show us abuses of power and corruption, greed can be horrible. In contrast to Palo's ideas, economic inequality and lack of ownership are also the core motivators for success. If you don't teach your children what failure is, how can they compete? Greatness has arised from failure. No one thing tried works the first time all of the time. Goals are achieved by events of failure or other hurdles or challenges thrown in front of you. It's important to fail sometimes because that is where one learns from their mistakes, that's called experience. It's extremely important to teach out children such things along with good morals, compassion, and charity.
There are many studies that show the quality of our education system when compared to other countries: "The United States spent 2.9 percent of its GDP on higher education—higher than any other G-8 country. The United States spends an average of $24,100 per student at the higher education level." and "17 percent of first university degrees in the United States were awarded in science, mathematics, and engineering-related fields, the lowest percentage of all the G-8 countries." http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=23424 Overall, it has me concerned about organizations like the NEA and other "educational groups" pushing leftist agendas and social engineering experiments in the school system, the fundamentals of teaching people to compete after their eduction is greatly diminished when compared to other countries. In all, it adds to the decline in quality of life for your average American. They are not equipped with the necessary skills to compete with people in other countries, therefore less good jobs are available in the US. We need future doctors and engineers in the work force.
Look at the innovators of the first personal computers that we use today. The standard prior to the innovations that formed Apple we products created for the office and business environment. It was the innovations of the founders of Apple that revolutionized the industry that we all benefit from now. It was drive, trial and error, and commitment that made Apple the success it became. To become those future inventors, children need a concrete understanding of that trial and error, and positive results can come from that failure. Failure is not always a bad thing. Not learning from that failure can be though.
While I would not promote raw greed, I would certainly hope educators would promote self-motivation for their students. The problem with Pelo's version of collectivism is many of those things we call innovation are not fostered or supported, even so far as demonized because you are punished for your successes. With the resulting "power" or private ownership additions that result from your success, that is now violating the economic equality and social justice perspectives that Ann Pelo describes. I would like to think that values come from parents, and teaching stuff is the job of a teacher. Ann Pelo should seriously keep her political ideologies out of a classroom environment. It reminds me too much of this:
Teacher Bullies Student Who Preferred McCain To Barack Obama
Ann Palo's ideas are an aspect of liberalism that I vehemently disagree with. While groups of people can do great things, it goes against our very nature to not want to excel in what we do as an individual as well. Also, it is not fair to blatantly take from those who do innovate and are successful. Results from that also do create jobs and better other people's lives. I can certainly see how Ann Pelo made the list of "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America." In honor of her, I'll try and not to miss the Blue Angels when they are in town. I would call them excellence in flying, who represent some of the best who volunteer to risk everything to ensure our freedoms.
Lastly, I wanted to include this really good write up from a guy who has kids on the same topic:
"I have young children. When they see planes flying overhead their first or second thoughts have nothing to do with anyone killing anybody unless this thought is planted in their heads yet the children in Ann’s care appear to have their slogans prepped and ready for the first anti-military, war protest they can find. As for what the parents might feel about Ms. Pelo’s political agenda Ann’s co-author states in their book, “Ann didn’t ask for parents’ input about their letter-writing—she didn’t genuinely want it. She felt passionately that they had done the right thing, and she wasn’t interested in hearing otherwise.” God forbid parents have the right to control the values their children learn.
Oh, and one more thing on the whole capitalism is evil thing. The rates for pre-school child care at the Hilltop Children’s Center range from $910 for three days a week to $1185 for four to five days a week. School age care ranges from $235 to $435 a week. The children involved in the leggo incident don’t arrive until 3:30 in the afternoon. I wish I could afford that kind of childcare but, hey that’s capitalism at work and Ann, in case you’ve forgotten, it pays your bills in an oh so sweet and hypocritically ironic way." http://conservativearena.blogspot.com/2007/03/lego-my-lego-and-evil-blue-angels.html
I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.
Five, universal health care. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some non-politicians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to intelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have canceled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
I knew some kind of negative press would come from the media regarding the Holocaust Museum Shooting In Washington D.C. with the murder of Stephen Tyrone Johns by that idiot James von Brunn. It’s people like James von Brunn who are fossils of the past whose bile is becoming more irrelevant over time. There is something about that type of hatred that invokes my utter contempt and anger towards their intolerant and racist ideology. It’s nice to see what James von Brunn’s son thinks of the actions of his father, "I cannot express enough how deeply sorry I am it was Mr. Johns, and not my father who lost (his) life," Erik von Brunn, 32, said in a statement to ABC News. Here, even the legacy of James von Brunn condemns his ideology and actions. There is a fantastic contribution to ones lineage. Further generations of the von Brunn family have to deal with this blight to their family history.
When I hear on television or read about “the simpler time of the 50s” I cannot help but think about things like segregation, and the actions of a brave few like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and the tragedy of Emmett Till-albeit sparking the flame of the Civil Rights movement that would come later. Reading, seeing on the history channel, and hearing about such things inspire awe in me when I think about what they had to go through. The adversity that they had to struggle with is only something I can speculate being of generation x. I can say that those past events are remembered, and influence subsequent generations (me) in a positive way.
I find more contradictions when I think about the Civil Rights movement becoming entwined with anti-war movement of the 60s. Where I would certainly see myself marching in complete support of Civil Rights for women and minorities, I am ideologically opposed to the anti-war aspect of it. Of course Vietnam was a complete debacle. What I am opposed to were the well to do people on the campus of Berkley and Columbia spitting on soldiers and the likes of that traitor Jane Fonda (as to is Sean Penn for my generation).
Those were just a few general examples, but I see that time as the beginning of an ideology that is something that I have to deal with today, liberalism. I find it rather ironic, where I opposed Reagan era policy and demonized the Republican Party as the core of the issue when I was younger, now I am more in line with their general ethos much more than I am the legacy of the anti-war movement. I need to make a clear distinction that I consider the Civil Rights and anti-war movements to completely different things.
I find one to be uplifting and motivating, and the other to be the actions of the naive and selfish. What we have now is the naive and selfish ideology so embedded into our psyche it took many years of reading, listening, and viewing to realize there was an alternative. I am quite happy that the alternative was more true to the roots of the founding fathers and what they had to say. I would have to summarize it as somewhat conservatism, with most of the emphasis being on responsible and informed individualism grounded in common sense. I won’t say that the founding fathers were perfect. For example, leaving the issue of those southern slave owners to future generations did a lot of damage in subsequent generations.
What I see as the actions of the naive and selfish as the corruption of liberalism seething into academia, government, and media. Where some of it makes perfect sense and I would support, there is a lot of it that follows Marxist and socialist ideology that I cannot forgive nor will overlook. Something inherently tells me big government is wrong and liberal bias is wrong.
This is an example of the dribble that I am talking about.
Chris Matthews and crap from MSNBC a great example to use. So much is covered in this interview on what is wrong with news today. I do need to give Susan Page some credit towards the end of the interview. I thought the she strived for that objectivity that I’d hope to see the media make the slightest attempt at doing. Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews, on the other hand, wonderfully exampled liberal media bias and oversimplification of issues so wonderfully following the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” dogma.
The press remarked over and over again that he came from a right wing ideology. The thing is, James von Brunn’s ideology stems from leftist views. I wanted to make that statement because a recent DHS report stated “right wing” as well. The media likes to lump the racist and toxic ideology that James von Brunn subscribed to as right wing. Where in the world of op ed and 24 hour news, I would hope that an “objective” media would even try to pretend not to be so biased. Unfortunately, ethics, morals, and credibility are long gone for them. They liberal media are quite possibly one of the worst results of the naive and selfish ideology. I am not a professional in my analysis in and way what so ever. I just cannot fathom how simplistic this right/left paradigm is presented in traditional media.
There are some things that are left out of the public square because is opposes the agenda of the liberal press when they are providing their “in-depth” analysis, and these things are sure something that I did not learn from them. I wanted to provide a few historical examples of such things. I am going to use the same simplistic party lines and associations that the media presents, to give an idea that things are not as simple as they’d like them to be.
We all know that the end of slavery came from the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party. I have seen the liberal press paint that Republican Party as vastly different from the Republican Party today. That’s fine, but it was also the southern Democrats who were the greatest opposition in Civil Rights legislation before it became law. One of those in opposition was Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, elected him “Exalted Cyclops” even. This Democrat is now 4th in line to the Presidency. While he regrets his past actions, it cannot be swept under the rug of inconvenient facts.
On a side note, another Democrat who opposed civil rights legislation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Albert Gore, Sr., father to “the sky is falling!” Al Gore environmental weenie we all know and love today. I must give credit to Albert Gore, Sr., though, for stating his opposition was one of his biggest mistakes.
School desegregation ended with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. That event led to the incident at Little Rock Central High School. “On the morning of September 23, 1957, the nine African-American high school students faced an angry mob of over 1,000 European-Americans protesting integration in front of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.[5] As the students were escorted inside by the Little Rock police, violence escalated and they were removed from the school.[5] The next day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the 1,200-man 327th Airborne Battle Group of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to escort the nine students into the school.[5] By the same order, the entire 10,000 man Arkansas National Guard was federalized, to remove them from the control of Governor Faubus.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Central_High_School Eisenhower was a Republican. On the other hand are the actions of a Democrat: “Faubus' name became internationally known during the Little Rock Crisis of 1957, when he used the National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus
These events need to be realized when you have to deal with the media op ed blaming right wing hate speech and right wing ideology being behind that cretin James von Brunn. He was a member of the neo-Nazi movement who demonized Jews, Christians, and minorities with an equal amount of contempt. Point being neo-Nazi.
Before I get into the more general details of political philosophy I wanted to post the basis to which I adhere to. It follows in line what I remember from school.
Racism stems from a form of collectivism, whereas the right stems from individualism. That individualism stems for rights and the dignity of the individual. During the 30s the Germans and Russians hammered out the leftist ideology defining what they believed in. Each agreed to define themselves as opposite of the other to emphasize their flavor of oppression. Despite that, what the two have in common is the opposition to freedom of the individual. We are faced with the notion of a large government seeking to control the individual. These racist ideologues seek to control the individual based on race is one of the aspects of collectivism.
The Nazi party means National Socialism, who pursued a totalitarian doctrine of intolerance to opposition of the state and worked towards finding the “final solution” to their Jewish problem. Here you have an example of the worst and most genocidal actions of a fanatical large government with a strict racial ideology. In other words, it is the manifestation of extreme evil being conducted by human beings. Erik von Brunn and his cronies supported a political ideology that contradicts individualism. As much as Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh try to associate Erik von Brunn and like people as “right wing,” it is simply untrue.
While the above can be simplistic, sometimes simple is better. Many liberals like to overanalyze things to come across as pseudo-intellectual wind bags. Common sense is good. When I stress individualism I make that association with conservatism, not the Republican party. Bush’s exponential growth of government during his 8 years is not an action of a conservative.
A good example of conservative doctrine (with a dash of Republican) is this:
While I do appreciate Reagan’s speeches, I also found Obama’s speeches very inspiring.
* I am testing embedding video into this blog, but I did want to take this opportunity to acknowledge great speakers who give different views, but very eloquently. I appreciate that immensely now. I would never have called Dubya eloquent at all.
It’s not the message that the Democratic Party has that I particularly disagree with. There are Republican Party issues which I disagree with just as much.
The root of the problem stems the naive and selfish liberal idiots who have permeated mass media, government, and academia in recent decades. To their tribute, we have seen the public square become a name calling match, political correctness obliterating common sense, and traditional American values being demonized. When one blames America first, they are so blind to history and the freedom and opportunity that this country has to offer I feel it’s my job to call them out.
In addition, to quote Jefferson, “when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty” is valid to this day. I’d consider it unpatriotic to not to peacefully address my grievances to government policy. What’s good to know is that the internet has become more mainstream in addressing alternative views to the main stream media, that liberal press is hemorrhaging from declining subscribers and viewers. It’s nice to see liberal bias is known, recognized, and failing. MSNBC and op ed talking heads like Chris Matthews really shine in their ridiculousness. Low consumer numbers reflect that.
Health care reform is one of those things I know that is broken, but I am in no way an expert on what type of reform should be done. I know that government control of anything means massive inefficiency and bureaucratic red tape that should not be a factor with healthcare. I did some searching around and found a very interesting site that discusses socialized health care.
I need to shout out to Obama's great performance and support for the armed forces by participating in this Steven Colbert show skit. I laughed my ass off when I saw this.
Steven Colbert Haircut - Ordered by Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBUJBqDtwwM
Here is a great bill going through congress:
HR 1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve
This gives a simple explanation of the bill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRsLGS8Coz8 and further discussion on Glen Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hol2tbwhjY
Here is Ron Paul giving an explanation of it on CSPAN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PC9fkLMZmo
Seriously, I hope she gets voted out and does her public service in CA…or far away from Washington. The vile woman does nothing but serve her own self interest and is completely clueless outside of her own personal gain.
I remember seeing a youtube clip where a girl stated that people are just afraid of a strong woman in a position of power, and supported her based on that notion. I am not afraid of a woman in a position of power in any way. Actually, I have great respect for Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Thatcher...even Hillary Clinton...to a certain extent. Where I am not a big fan her policies in the past, she is a force to be reckoned with. I have yet to see what she will do with her role in the State Department, but overall she seems to be doing a decent job.
As you can see, it’s not a woman thing. While Republicans are trying to make a big issues out of Sonia Sotomaors comments about white men, I can sort of understand where she comes from. I think that statement is being politicized to the point that it is just plain silly. But the aspect of white men in rolls of government is not particularly appealing to me. First, qualified people should be put into positions of government based on their qualifications, and not their race or sex. Those aspects seem irrelevant to me. I would much rather see people from all walks of life (though qualified) in public office because it offers better viewpoints by bringing to light opinions that would be more representative of our nation.
I need to make an exception to that disgusting excuse of a human being Nancy Pelosi. This is a rather interesting story about one my state representative’s attempts to contact Pelosi to further pursue what she wants to do about and further brings to light her calling the CIA a bunch of liars who misled her.
First watch this, where she boasts about the need for bipartisanship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFM44iiQczc Here she claims that being bipartisan is owed to the American people, and such should be sought after by all representatives. But the big problem, according to her, is the Republicans are “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America.”*** Further into is, she stated that with the Democratic congress, she didn’t want its legacy to be that of a partisan nature-but of a more civil one.
The article from “thehill.com” goes to explain that Cantor’s inquiries to Pelosi’s office to see if she should receive further intelligence briefings. Which I think would be good to have some sort of official response in light of her outright accusation of calling the CIA liars who misled her on enhanced interrogations. What her, and her office, has done is “[Cantor] have put in requests to meet with her and have yet to be responded to.” Her not wanting to talk about the issue any further does not cut it. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BCGD80&show_article=1
So I guess this is Pelosi in action. I recall it being in the news and then that witch stated she’d not comment on it again...then off to China she went. Not much else has been said. I think the damage has been done and she needs to be held accountable for her official statements on the matter. She called the CIA liars. It’s as simple as that. She needs to be held accountable for her rhetoric. She has no excuse to weasel her way out of that one.
*** In a previous quote I had included “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America” because I need to point something out regarding those evil “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented” folks. I want to post some facts on that. Simply broken down, Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. Where a Republican will choose to “put their hand in their pocket” and generously donate to charities overall, the Democrat ethos seems to be more geared towards taking money out of someone else’s pocket and make a welfare program. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I could not state it better: “The moral of that story is that when it comes to charitable giving - whether you’re talking time and/or money, conservatives beat liberals hands down - in spite of how often liberals wail about “mean-spirited conservatives” who hate the poor/elderly/sick, etc so much that they want to “deprive” them.” http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/04/16/why-isnt-joe-biden-more-generous-with-his-own-money-than-mine/
Lastly, in her video she stated the “3 C’s,” one of them being her prioritization of her constituents. She has burned some bridges there. For example, see Cindy Sheehan’s run for congress as an Independent in opposition to Pelosi (interesting video to): http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sheehan_announces_independent_run_against_Pelosi_0809.html
Nancy Pelosi: the extreme moderate http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-fairbanks15apr15,0,6422702.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
While angering some of the more extreme anti-war types is one thing, as speaker of the house need not be calling the CIA liars and then NOT effectively explain herself. Her statement of refusal to talk about the issue further even makes her actions more disgusting. She has no credibility what so ever.
The liberal tactics that were evident in the 2008 election can be summed up in a 2 Live Crew CD I had. It was called "As Nasty As They Wanna Be." As I have described in a previous post, the liberal smear machine and bias in the press can be summarized by the treatment of Sarah Palin in the press. In addition, the Bush administration was hammered pretty badly...but when it comes to many of Bush's policies being criticized I might have agreed with some aspects, but not the tone presented. Otherwise supposed legitimate and "professional" members of the press have turned into little nasty partisan creatures.
One of my favorite examples is CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen interviewing people during the TEA party. The TEA party meant taxed enough already, and it consisted of people from many different backgrounds expressing their discontent with the government's policy of seemingly out of control spending. This you tube video is an extension of what occurred after the part that was aired on CNN. I rather enjoy it because Susan Roesgen gets put on the spot and has to explain herself. I am completely bewildered by this "professional" reporters lack of good journalism skills. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
The CNN incident is just one example of the partisan attacks on people who oppose the Obama administration's policy. As much as I do not like Rush Libaugh stating "I hope he fails" regarding Obama, it provides another good example. The press had "I hope he fails" all over the place. I looked for the whole context of the what he said, and what it turned out to be was he hoped his policies failed, not the president. That's about all of the 'support' I want to give to that dope addict. Ultimately, it is rather surprising that the Obama administration made a big deal about discussed Limbaugh in an official manner, where you'd normally see ignoring the issue. Any retort from the Obama administration just helped Rush's radio show ratings even more. Personally, if he's what the Republican party has to offer, the party is screwed.
A lot of the general nastiness and bias stems from an unethical and unprofesisonal press who are products of 60s radical thought. One of those promoters is a guy named Saul Alinsky, who was yet another Marxist America hating intellectual who was well known for his work called "Rules for Radicals." It's fascinating when you read of Alinsky, and apply his rules to the dialogue that we see from liberals in our government. In addition, this is not directly related (but notable) Hillary Clinton's senior honors thesis was on Sal Alinsky (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/).
A decent background of Alinsky can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
A good description of the "Rules for Radicals" can be located here: http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm
Now I wanted to apply a few rules to some of what we have heard, watched, and read over time.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Calling people who do not support Obama racist or people who do not support gay marriage homophobes are two that I can think of right off of the top of my head. I recall the racist dialogue coming from John Murtha during focus on the Pennsylvania campaign. He outright called his constituents racist because they did not support Obama. Such a faulty generalization from a member of congress in the context of mass media coverage is completely uncalled for.
In addition, I really see the application of rule 5 from the liberal immigration rights groups pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens. At first they were calling groups such as the Minute Men racist xenophobes, then in other interviews they insinuate individuals who do not support amnesty as being racist and xenophobes. In addition, an amazing double standard is everything is done so politically correct. Everybody is offended by this or that...but the liberal left can get away with calling Bush a Nazi or someone that does not support their cause to be ignorant and a hater. Any dialogue of opposition to their cause is immediately ridiculed using the lowest common denominator. While I won't agree with Obama's policy, out of respect for his office and being democratically elected, there is a certain degree of natural respect that I have for him and refuse to get nasty about things. But that is the problem, it's that sense of decency in which Saul Alinksy defines and applies his rule to.
One thing the seems to really apply is those who speak the loudest about intolerance tend to be the most intolerant of all, and the only "rights" the left supports is abortion and gay rights. An example is as soon as right leaning radio starts opposing Obama's policies, there is discussion of bringing back the fairness doctrine. In the larger scheme of things, the fairness doctrine is government control on free speech. Another obvious example is the 2nd Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/
Here is another one, albeit more general...RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
This one is pretty easy. We'll see a great depression if this stimulus bill isn't passed! And many other extreme situations as a result of not implementing X policy. But then again, that can be applied to "Our cities will be mushroom clouds is we don't invade Iraq and remove Sadam from power!" Another good example is Rahm Emanuel's gaff "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
While "Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America," we are strife with massive corruption and voter fraud coming from ACORN and other wonderful things that this new administration is cranking out over time such as stimulus money going to waste (as I read Biden stating in the news today). While the Obama campaign was well done, and his supporters applied their nasty partisan attacks in a manner that would make Alinsky smile, there is a problem. While Alinsky focused on the means to change government by shaking up the power structure in order to have that "hope and change" implemented, he failed to really define what people did when they had it. Obama won and the other branches have DNC party in power now. Yet we see nothing coming from the government that is really helping this economic crisis as a whole. I think they should really go back and review the works of Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers in regard to handling this economic crisis. I think that their wisdom would far outweigh some 60s Marxist dope each and every time.
Pretty funny article showing the high level of faith we have in our Pelosi controlled congress. While the Cheney ratings are not particularly surprising, the Pelosi rating is pretty much dead on. I have searched for positive views on that banshee and can only find a few from her fellow democrats and San Francisco voters.
Personally, I cannot stand the woman. While I might give a certain degree of respect to the Obama administration, I give Pelosi none what so ever. She has proven to be a complete idiot, and her as speaker of the house shows little positive light for the democratic party as a whole.
Back in the 2006 election the code pink and other left leaning groups were calling for Bush's impeachment and demanded more accountability from their government. While I am 180 degrees different from their views, I wholeheartedly support their right to peacefully assemble to address their grievances to the government. One of Pelosi's platform promises was to pursue investigation of the Bush administration for any wrong doing. When she eventually was elected she essentially stated that was not in the best interest of government to do such things...or they had bigger fish to fry.
Other gaffs and acts of idiocy over the last few years didn't help change my opinion of her. She only proved to be some power hungry banshee out to achieve her agenda and not the wishes of the American people.
Take the most recent debacle in calling the CIA liars regarding her briefing of water boarding in 2002. She went to far to call the CIA a bunch of liars, despite the CIA being ran by Leon Panetta, who is a former Democratic House member. Such a boast should be cause for censure and a means to get that banshee to step down from office. I still cannot believe the audacity of that woman when I think about the caliber of fine people who work in our intelligence agencies. They do not hire people with questionable back grounds and have qualifications that Pelosi could only dream of achieving. How dare she call them liars.
Consider that the left praised the integrity and wonderful job the CIA did during the Valerie Plame issue some years back. Consider the scope of work that the CIA works with daily in the best interest of our country. I cannot fathom what they have done to save us from further terrorist attacks. All I know is while we'll never know what the "spook agencies" do, it is full of dedicated Americans who have 10 times more integrity than that whack job Pelosi.
I would fully support obtaining the truth of what she was told in 2002 by using methods such as water boarding on her.
I would like to respond to XXX "Time for Change in November." I want to focus on some root causes of the financial crisis and point out that 8 years of Bush in office is not the main reason behind the housing crisis and the current bank implosion.
While Obama might have done something to avert the crisis in 2006, his mantra of hope and change turns out to be thin and empty when we look into the actual solutions he has proposed. "Above my pay grade" and voting "present" do not reflect a good decision maker. The executive office requires decisions.
The bank meltdown was caused by the housing bubble primarily due to the subprime lending by banks to people who should never have been approved for their loan in the first place. The mortgages were risky, and now we as a nation are paying the price. The seed for the crisis was sown with the "Community Reinvestment Act" that was passed by Jimmy Carter and other Democrats. The act gave incentives to help low income borrowers. It helped some and was a noble idea. In 1995, Clinton added new provisions to the act in which forced banks to issue $1 trillion in new subprime loans. As a result, lenders did not mitigate the loan risk. The revisions made during the Clinton Administration allowed the securitization of the Community Reinvestment Act loans containing the subprime loans, which created subprime mortgage securities.
Companies such as Countrywide, Fanny Mae, and Freddy Mac all contributed to these subprime loans as housing prices increased. The selling of these mortgages to banks went on, and Fannie Mae later moving down the income ladder, offering attractive options to people who would not normally qualify for a mortgage loan. About 92% of Fannie Mae's subprime loans were variable rate and banks faced penalties for not supporting a certain percentage of those subprime loans. Fannie Mae's claim to guarantee these loans allowed the situation to continue. With interest rates, gas prices, and everything else up, low income borrowers were impacted and stopped paying off loans and banks stopped loaning. This resulted in the collapse of the subprime market, and those Fannie Mae "guarantees" became worthless because they kept overstating their assets. Banks collapsed due to government-sponsored securities issued by Fannie Mae.
Before the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), home prices increased with inflation and the CRA allowed prices to skyrocket out of control. Economic fundamentals did not support this raise (or bubble), but regulation-mandated credit did. In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended oversight and a regulatory overhaul of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats stopped it because regulation diminished the ability to finance loans to lower-income families (Barney Frank & Melvin Watt-Democrats).
In addition, John McCain warned of a mortgage collapse in 2005 and co-sponsored "The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005", which would have regulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This legislative act was blocked twice by Democrats, including Chris Dodd and Barak Obama. Also, please read about Jim Johnson (former chairman of Fannie Mae) and Franklin Raines about their involvement with Barak Obama, who is #2 in receiving campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, 49 times the amount John McCain received. In addition, Obama represented the law firm that sued banks for not issuing enough subprime loans (Miner, Barnhill, & Galland versus Citibank).
There is evidence to demonstrate that Obama is 'more of the same' and his accusations towards McCain are baseless when his hands are just as dirty as everyone else involved in this debacle that started back in 1995. I really wanted to cut Obama some slack because the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright associations were shady, but no different from many other politicians. Bill Clinton sure had his issues, but he still got my vote in 1992.
When I read about the $700 Billion Bailout included $100 million earmark for ACORN, a federally funded organization which he is associated with, that changed my opinion of Obama. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has its issues of federal indictments of voter fraud is the organization that he worked with in his "community organizer" days. Obama opposed and demonized McCain about earmarks didn't he? Obama is just more of the same. While I am NO fan of the Bush Administration, McCain seems to be the most honest of the lot. Also, the extreme bias and contempt exhibited by the media towards Palin has not helped in maintaining an objective opinion of the Obama campaign.
On a side note, I won't discount some parts of deregulation leading to negative consumer rights consequences, but I wanted to make note that MANY of these consumer protections have been brought to us by Ralph Nader…also running for President.
I support John McCain. Barak Obama can keep his version of "change"!
I say let him speak. Not because I support some wanna be dictator's hateful rhetoric. Ahmadinejad is a complete, and total idiot. He should be allowed to speak because it gives American's the opportunity to protest. He gets to see what the people of Iran are unable to do. Watching the news over the past few days, it appears that there are quite a number of groups organizing to protest whatever he has to say. I appreciate those organization having the opportunity to speak out against his rhetoric. He cannot possibly say anything that would be shocking. Prior to his trip to the U.S. he was seen on TV in an old soviet style May Day parade, with military vehicles driving by with "Death to Israel!" and "Death to USA!" written on them.
It's pretty obvious that Ahmadinejad is a nut. Let him speak, it gives a medium for his opposition and we are a free society able to offer different views and options. With that in mind, I have to question why Columbia invites Ahmadinejad to speak at their university, promoting different views on things, where the university has shown a severe lack of support for the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC).
"As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus." Source
Also, "Prior to the late 1960s, Columbia’s current anti-US military atmosphere seems to have been almost nonexistent. Indeed, as early as 1916 an ROTC program was instituted on campus, where it matured and grew during the two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, and even part of the Vietnam War era. Producing some of the finest naval officers ever to serve our country, at one point Columbia was actually churning out more Navy ensigns per year than even the US Naval Academy. In 1968, however, the university’s administration expelled all ROTC programs from campus in order to appease the sometimes-violent student protesters who opposed the Vietnam War – one of whom actually decimated Columbia’s ROTC offices with a Molotov cocktail.
The university’s ban on ROTC remained in place until a 1980 decision to not only allow its students to participate in the ROTC program at nearby Fordham University, but also to have a record of ROTC classes displayed on their Columbia transcripts. In 1990 however, this policy came to an end. While Columbia students could still take part in ROTC programs on neighboring college campuses, their transcripts no longer reflected that participation. To this day, ROTC classes are not considered part of the regular curriculum of studies. When the military recently forced Columbia to allow on-campus military recruiting (under the banner of the Solomon Amendment, which allows for the denial of federal funding to colleges that prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment), the university’s president openly urged students not to interview – because of what he called the military’s discrimination against homosexuals." Source
It just seems that Columbia supports anti-American rhetoric, while at the same time doesn't support the military. I have heard talk of the threatening to deny Columbia federal funding. I think that is a fantastic idea. The old 60's radicals who could not get a job other than hidden on a college campus really do not need federal money. If they are so anti-military, I say deny them their public funding. They don't need it.
Follow the basic notion that liberalism is a disease, moveon.org’s case has gotten so sickening it’s at the point of being utterly delusional and bat shit crazy. The best way to describe my relationship with moveon.org is like a girlfriend you have. At first she is cool, but after awhile the preliminary niceties are over and one night she is convinced you are cheating on her and gives you a ration of hell for going out with the boys...but she thinks you are going to the other woman's house. For the record I am married, and have never cheated on anyone.
My turning point with moveon.org was with the ad they posted. “It's General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” This link touts their proud message https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html.
Now Bush had a speech the other day...or another episode of lies, BS, and horse s**t. Regardless of what Iraq lies he is touting, he did condemn moveon.org because of what they said about General Petraeus and no democrat has said anything about it. At the core, that is just wrong. General Petraeus is amazing. Bush is not! But General Petraeus is the sh*t. Now the official stance from moveon.org is this:
Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, reacted quickly to Bush's comments.
"What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war," Pariser said. "The president has no credibility on Iraq: He lied repeatedly to the American people to get us into the war. Most Americans oppose the war and want us to get out." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/20/bush.petraeus/index.html
Slam Bush. Fine. I would expect a liberal response to be that vehement and foul...from an official. Libs are great at 2 things. Crying and yelling. I am saying that because all they do is character assassinate and whine from emotion before logic or fact. Don't get me wrong, what they said about Bush is right on, but what pisses me off is their official response is still evident of disdain towards General Petraeus. Which their official statement follows the logical fallacy of missing the point, which is quite sad when coming from an organization that tries to make itself look important.
So you have the moveon.org printing an ad equating a career military general as a traitor. The president says moveon.org sucks, and their official response bashes the president, but fails to apologize for their slander against of General Petraeus. I'd like to show the background behind the two.
Eli Pariser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Pariser
General Petraeus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Petraeus
Eli Pariser is the person picked out of the lot to represent moveon.org. This is the best of their best. It's Eli Pariser's job stick to their convictions. Their lack of acknowledgment about slamming General Petraeus shows their weakness. A military General who served with distinction (under Clinton the administration even! OMG!) being trashed talked by such a useless organization is a joke.
It's tough, around 2004 I bought a movie called “Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”. It was a great documentary! Ex CIA and government official interviews, it was amazing. I loved it. Their background info was really good. The interviews had people who were qualified and knew their sh*t.
Now in 2007 you have this organization prints this ad to evoke a reaction based on emotion by slandering and incredible man. They strike right at the military. An organization they only wish they had 1/10 of the integrity and honor that is associated with them. Moveon.org has only showed that they are a bunch of leftist liberal bastards who don't give a crap about making any sense when it comes to their arguments. For that, they fail. As an alternative, I watched a documentary called “Rush to War” that was very good. There was no moveon.org association with it.
In the scheme of things we still have a bunch of democrats offering "change" in 2008, but they cannot condemn the fringe aspects that their own party. Meaning that they cannot squelch their leftist aspects. They do a wonderful job and slamming the military. Just read quotes slamming them from Dick Durbin, Pelosi, John Murtha, etc. by searching the web for details. Where I will call them useless liberal cry babies, I'll still respect them for their general stance. But when they slam the military, that crosses the line. Slam the commander in chief, do not slam those who's job it is to follow orders. It's the act of a cowardice what the libs do.
