*sigh*
8/26/2009
Nancy Pelosi says "Damned the plebs! I know what's good for them!"
Kennedy health reform 'dream' will be real this year: Pelosi
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Wednesday to push through embattled health reform legislation this year following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, who called the effort "the cause of my life".
"Ted Kennedy?s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration," Pelosi said in a statement.
President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to provide health insurance to all Americans, the top domestic priority of his administration, has met with stiff public and political opposition amid concerns over the costs of the plan and the role of government in providing medical care.
Pelosi, one of Obama's top Democratic allies, was reminding Americans that reforming the health care system was a cause dear to the heart of Kennedy, who died late Tuesday after losing a long battle with brain cancer.
"Sadly, Senator Kennedy left us exactly one year after he inspired the nation with his speech of optimism, vitality, and courage at the Convention in Denver," she said.
Cancer-stricken, Kennedy climbed on stage at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008 to give an emotional speech in support of Obama as he campaigned for the presidency and their shared commitment to health care reform.
"This is the cause of my life," Kennedy said of the 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance.
"The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on," said Kennedy in passing the torch to Obama.
Pelosi said that: "Today, with the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the American people have lost a great patriot, and the Kennedy family has lost a beloved patriarch.
"Over a lifetime of leadership, Senator Kennedy?s statesmanship and political prowess produced a wealth of accomplishment that has improved opportunity for every American."
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Wednesday to push through embattled health reform legislation this year following the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, who called the effort "the cause of my life".
"Ted Kennedy?s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration," Pelosi said in a statement.
President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to provide health insurance to all Americans, the top domestic priority of his administration, has met with stiff public and political opposition amid concerns over the costs of the plan and the role of government in providing medical care.
Pelosi, one of Obama's top Democratic allies, was reminding Americans that reforming the health care system was a cause dear to the heart of Kennedy, who died late Tuesday after losing a long battle with brain cancer.
"Sadly, Senator Kennedy left us exactly one year after he inspired the nation with his speech of optimism, vitality, and courage at the Convention in Denver," she said.
Cancer-stricken, Kennedy climbed on stage at the Democratic National Convention in August 2008 to give an emotional speech in support of Obama as he campaigned for the presidency and their shared commitment to health care reform.
"This is the cause of my life," Kennedy said of the 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance.
"The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on," said Kennedy in passing the torch to Obama.
Pelosi said that: "Today, with the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the American people have lost a great patriot, and the Kennedy family has lost a beloved patriarch.
"Over a lifetime of leadership, Senator Kennedy?s statesmanship and political prowess produced a wealth of accomplishment that has improved opportunity for every American."
Larry Flynt!?!?!?
I LOVED the movie "The People vs. Larry Flynt" that had Woody Harrelson and Courtney Love in it. I came across this article he wrote. While controversial, this guy certainly stands up for what he believes in, and I can totally respect that.
Common Sense 2009
The American government -- which we once called our government -- has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called "economic royalists," who choose our elected officials -- indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.
This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment's hesitation, they took our money -- yours and mine -- to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don't care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as "useless eaters."
But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?
"A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street."
There it is. Right there. We are Main Street. We must, according to our president, share the blame. He went on to say: "And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis -- the Great Depression -- was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy."
This is nonsense.
The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did -- knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) -- was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight -- and we've all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.
Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.
Obama's failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.
Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Read Rockefeller's words again. He actually admits to working against the "best interests of the United States."
Need more? Here's what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order." They're gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn't enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.
The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here's what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father's conquered."
We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists' attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays' Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America's farmers.
Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks' predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Perhaps it's time to consider that option once again.
I'm calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.
Let's set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn't effective -- if the politicians ignore us -- we do it again. And again. And again.
The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It's time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html?view=print
Common Sense 2009
The American government -- which we once called our government -- has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called "economic royalists," who choose our elected officials -- indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.
This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment's hesitation, they took our money -- yours and mine -- to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don't care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as "useless eaters."
But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?
"A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street."
There it is. Right there. We are Main Street. We must, according to our president, share the blame. He went on to say: "And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis -- the Great Depression -- was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy."
This is nonsense.
The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did -- knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) -- was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight -- and we've all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.
Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.
Obama's failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.
Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Read Rockefeller's words again. He actually admits to working against the "best interests of the United States."
Need more? Here's what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order." They're gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.
Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn't enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.
The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here's what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father's conquered."
We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists' attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays' Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America's farmers.
Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks' predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Perhaps it's time to consider that option once again.
I'm calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.
Let's set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn't effective -- if the politicians ignore us -- we do it again. And again. And again.
The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It's time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-flynt/common-sense-2009_b_264706.html?view=print
8/25/2009
8/20/2009
Romney: Liberals given too much say in health care
I have always liked Romney, below is a reason why. While his health care efforts for the state of Massachusetts have had mixed results, I appreciate his efforts in general.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says President Barack Obama is struggling to get a health care bill because he has been too deferential to the liberal wing of his party.
Interviewed from Boston Thursday on CBS's "The Early Show," Romney said he thinks the president must shoulder the blame for the gridlocked situation surrounding health care legislation. He said Obama gave too much influence to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others.
Romney said that "if the president wants to get something done, he needs to put aside the extreme liberal wing of his party." Romney, who ran for the Republican presidential nod last year, said Medicare and Medicaid already account for virtually half of health care and there shouldn't be any greater federal role.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090820/D9A6J3CG2.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says President Barack Obama is struggling to get a health care bill because he has been too deferential to the liberal wing of his party.
Interviewed from Boston Thursday on CBS's "The Early Show," Romney said he thinks the president must shoulder the blame for the gridlocked situation surrounding health care legislation. He said Obama gave too much influence to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others.
Romney said that "if the president wants to get something done, he needs to put aside the extreme liberal wing of his party." Romney, who ran for the Republican presidential nod last year, said Medicare and Medicaid already account for virtually half of health care and there shouldn't be any greater federal role.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090820/D9A6J3CG2.html
8/18/2009
Gallup Poll
Polls and statistical data can always be manipulated to show metrics in favor of one thing or another. Regardless, the story is notable.
Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.
“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.
“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.
In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.
Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.
Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.
The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602
Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
Monday, August 17, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
(CNSNews.com) - Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.
“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.
“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state. In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.
In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.
Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal. In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.
Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.
The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602
8/17/2009
Lost Woman
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her
altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an
hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet
above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude
and 100 degrees, 49 .09 minutes west longitude.
"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct. However, I have no idea what to do with your information, and
I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be an Obama Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an
hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet
above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude
and 100 degrees, 49 .09 minutes west longitude.
"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct. However, I have no idea what to do with your information, and
I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be an Obama Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
8/14/2009
8/12/2009
Obama fluffer at it again
Chris Mattews at his finest smarmy badgering.
The only violence I have seen thus at these town meetings was brought to us by SEIU. While the man attacked is actually an independent, it was pretty blatant that he was attacked by SEUI thugs. Service Employees International Union, whom "The SEIU has been involved in political campaigning for legislation backed by President Obama and the US Democratic Party. Its organizers have been alleged to have packed supposedly open meetings hosted by Democratic politicians with SEIU members[11]. On August 7th 2009 three members of the SEIU were accused of attacking a conservative protester, Kenneth Gladney, outside such a meeting[12]. One of the attackers, who was black, was heard using racial epithets to Mr Gladney who is also black. Mr Gladney was taken to the hospital with serious but not life-threatening injuries. At least two of the six persons arrested were SEIU members, one white and one black, both males." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union
8/07/2009
Plebs, take your health care reform as the government presents it!
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
8/01/2009
Damned plebian rabble!
Congressman Tim Bishop Encounters Angry Citizens at Townhall Meeting
How dare this crowd of rabble get in the way! Story about is here
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25646.html
How dare this crowd of rabble get in the way! Story about is here
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25646.html
7/29/2009
Obama policy gone bad? Blame Bush!
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.'"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/29/obama-still-cashing-in-on-bushs-economic-failings/print/
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.'"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/29/obama-still-cashing-in-on-bushs-economic-failings/print/
7/20/2009
Congressmen Who Vote for Government-Run Health Care Agency Should Be Its First Customers
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.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50756
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.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50756
7/16/2009
Cloward/Piven and the radical left
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.
How it applies today:
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html
CHANDLER: The Cloward-Piven strategy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/the-cloward-piven-strategy/
Some Basis:
Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
http://cloward-piven.com/
How it applies today:
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html
CHANDLER: The Cloward-Piven strategy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/the-cloward-piven-strategy/
Some Basis:
Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
http://cloward-piven.com/
7/15/2009
African journalist makes CNN Obama cheerleader look really, really stupid
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/
7/13/2009
Obama fluffer Chris Matthews is at it again!
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.
Matthews: My ‘Job’ Is To Make Obama Presidency A Success
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673
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.
Matthews: My ‘Job’ Is To Make Obama Presidency A Success
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673
Independence Day
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.
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.
Interesting Sarah Palin story
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.
http://www.secondreaganrevolution.com/2009/07/sarah-palin-terrifies-the-left-the-emporer-has-no-clothes/
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.
http://www.secondreaganrevolution.com/2009/07/sarah-palin-terrifies-the-left-the-emporer-has-no-clothes/
6/30/2009
...People Who Are Screwing Up America
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)