What a great Video on how 'we the people' have forgotten what our duty is to be free and what our responsibility is to the next generation of Americas. This video points out how our government is stealing our heritage while we do nothing to stop it.
The town hall meetings are good start but we have to do more to secure our nation. We can not let down our guard.
Watch this short dissertation on our Constitution and our duty to protect it. This is important to us all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
Monday, August 31, 2009
Energy Exploration : Send A Message - Drill Now
The Heritage Foundation wants us to send a message to the Obama administration to open new drilling sites off shore.
Do it today - right now! It's very important so take the time, please.
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
While the President and Congress have been hard at work trying to nationalize the health care industry, there is another issue they have been avoiding: energy exploration.
» Tell the Obama administration what you think about energy exploration
President Obama’s Department of the Interior has been stalling a plan that would open up 31 new offshore drilling areas. These areas contain an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil, and these initial estimates usually prove to be low. This increase in supply would result in lower gas prices and home heating costs for you and your family.
This important energy exploration program—which is in jeopardy if the Obama administration doesn’t act—would result in:
More American Jobs. According to a 2008 Heritage Foundation study, increasing domestic oil production by one million barrels per day would generate 128,000 jobs. At two million barrels per day, that figure jumps to 270,000.
Increased State Revenues. Increasing America’s domestic oil production would help states that are struggling to close their annual budget deficit. Developing just a portion of our nation’s abundant offshore energy resource base would generate new jobs and billions in additional tax revenue and royalties.
Increased Energy Access. America imports more than 10 million barrels of oil per day, despite holding vast, untapped reserves. No other country in the developed world with access to an outer continental shelf has even considered locking its abundant resources away. America should make full use of the resources available to it.
But instead of actively pursuing this policy to increase America’s energy supply, the Obama Administration has focused its energy policy on a cap-and-trade system.
Instead of lowering costs for families like yours, this policy would tax American energy at a rate so high the average family of four will have to pay over $3000 more in direct and indirect energy costs a year. The impact on the economy would be devastating—millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in the economy will be lost.
But you can speak out. To promote American energy and American jobs, you can submit a comment in support of energy exploration to the Department of Interior at FreeOurEnergy.com.
It only takes two minutes of your time, and you’ll help put America back on the road to prosperity. We cannot let America’s energy resources go to waste.
Your support for The Heritage Foundation helps us accomplish everything we do. Thanks as always.
Sincerely,
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
Do it today - right now! It's very important so take the time, please.
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
While the President and Congress have been hard at work trying to nationalize the health care industry, there is another issue they have been avoiding: energy exploration.
» Tell the Obama administration what you think about energy exploration
President Obama’s Department of the Interior has been stalling a plan that would open up 31 new offshore drilling areas. These areas contain an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil, and these initial estimates usually prove to be low. This increase in supply would result in lower gas prices and home heating costs for you and your family.
This important energy exploration program—which is in jeopardy if the Obama administration doesn’t act—would result in:
More American Jobs. According to a 2008 Heritage Foundation study, increasing domestic oil production by one million barrels per day would generate 128,000 jobs. At two million barrels per day, that figure jumps to 270,000.
Increased State Revenues. Increasing America’s domestic oil production would help states that are struggling to close their annual budget deficit. Developing just a portion of our nation’s abundant offshore energy resource base would generate new jobs and billions in additional tax revenue and royalties.
Increased Energy Access. America imports more than 10 million barrels of oil per day, despite holding vast, untapped reserves. No other country in the developed world with access to an outer continental shelf has even considered locking its abundant resources away. America should make full use of the resources available to it.
But instead of actively pursuing this policy to increase America’s energy supply, the Obama Administration has focused its energy policy on a cap-and-trade system.
Instead of lowering costs for families like yours, this policy would tax American energy at a rate so high the average family of four will have to pay over $3000 more in direct and indirect energy costs a year. The impact on the economy would be devastating—millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in the economy will be lost.
But you can speak out. To promote American energy and American jobs, you can submit a comment in support of energy exploration to the Department of Interior at FreeOurEnergy.com.
It only takes two minutes of your time, and you’ll help put America back on the road to prosperity. We cannot let America’s energy resources go to waste.
Your support for The Heritage Foundation helps us accomplish everything we do. Thanks as always.
Sincerely,
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
FCC Seeks Diversity In Radio : STOP Rush Limbaugh
The Obama administration wants to silence any opposition to their takeover of the country. Talk radio stands in there way. The liberals have all other media in there pocket now - so now all they have to do is stop Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and others from exercising their Constitutional right to free speech.
Marxist socialists don't want free speech? Who knew?
FCC 'Diversity' Chief Asked Liberals to Fight Limbaugh
Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:34 PM
By: Dan Weil
A top Federal Communications Commission official believes that “progressives” should challenge conservative media moguls like Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch.
FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd made that argument in a 2007 report he penned for the liberal Center for American Progress, CNS News reports. The article was titled “Media Maneuvers: Why the Rush to Waive Cross-Ownership Bans?” It discusses the FCC’s decision to allow Chicago real estate kingpin Sam Zell to buy the Chicago Tribune.
Lloyd argues that liberals should follow the tactics that President Franklin Roosevelt used to fight concentration of the media in conservative hands, such as then Tribune publisher Col. Robert McCormick. Lloyd maintains that Zell could mirror McCormick, by joining other conservative media heavies, including Limbaugh and Murdoch, to work against liberals.
“The vast majority of Zell’s political contributions go to support conservative candidates and causes,” Lloyd wrote, as cited by CNS. “Is Zell a modern Col. McCormick waiting in the wings to join forces with Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh?”
Lloyd claimed that the conservative media moguls were in league with the Supreme Court to battle liberals in the government. “A pro-big business Supreme Court aligned with Murdoch, Limbaugh, and Zell and ready to battle a progressive in the White House begins to sound a lot like the early years of the FDR administration,” Lloyd wrote.
“Will progressives sound like FDR and commit to creating a media policy that actually serves democracy and promotes diverse and antagonistic sources of news?”
Of course it’s difficult to argue that the media is under threat from conservatives when so many newspapers support Democrats on their editorial pages. And it’s hardly accurate to call Murdoch a doctrinaire conservative. He is famous for allying himself with politicians of all stripes, including Hillary Clinton, to further his business interests.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Marxist socialists don't want free speech? Who knew?
FCC 'Diversity' Chief Asked Liberals to Fight Limbaugh
Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:34 PM
By: Dan Weil
A top Federal Communications Commission official believes that “progressives” should challenge conservative media moguls like Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch.
FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd made that argument in a 2007 report he penned for the liberal Center for American Progress, CNS News reports. The article was titled “Media Maneuvers: Why the Rush to Waive Cross-Ownership Bans?” It discusses the FCC’s decision to allow Chicago real estate kingpin Sam Zell to buy the Chicago Tribune.
Lloyd argues that liberals should follow the tactics that President Franklin Roosevelt used to fight concentration of the media in conservative hands, such as then Tribune publisher Col. Robert McCormick. Lloyd maintains that Zell could mirror McCormick, by joining other conservative media heavies, including Limbaugh and Murdoch, to work against liberals.
“The vast majority of Zell’s political contributions go to support conservative candidates and causes,” Lloyd wrote, as cited by CNS. “Is Zell a modern Col. McCormick waiting in the wings to join forces with Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh?”
Lloyd claimed that the conservative media moguls were in league with the Supreme Court to battle liberals in the government. “A pro-big business Supreme Court aligned with Murdoch, Limbaugh, and Zell and ready to battle a progressive in the White House begins to sound a lot like the early years of the FDR administration,” Lloyd wrote.
“Will progressives sound like FDR and commit to creating a media policy that actually serves democracy and promotes diverse and antagonistic sources of news?”
Of course it’s difficult to argue that the media is under threat from conservatives when so many newspapers support Democrats on their editorial pages. And it’s hardly accurate to call Murdoch a doctrinaire conservative. He is famous for allying himself with politicians of all stripes, including Hillary Clinton, to further his business interests.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Illegals Destroying American Health Care System
This is just one more part of the liberal agenda to destroy the very fabric of American life. The debate over a national health care program now in progress gives hope to all of us that maybe, just maybe, we have a chance to stop this insanity of providing health care for the entire world free of charge.
Investor's BD is on the mark - a great article but very depressing. Keep the faith and join the battle for sanity in America. Vote out the liberal destructors.
Paying The Price For Illegal Care
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Friday, August 21, 2009 4:20 PM
PT*Health Care:*
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series26.aspx
Democrats are right that uncompensated emergency care for the uninsured is driving up costs. What they don't say is it's illegal immigrants who are bankrupting ERs, and the federal government is encouraging them. Last decade, the Clinton administration added teeth to a little-known Health and Human Services Department regulation mandating that hospitals provide emergency treatment even to illegals.
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can't even ask for a patient's immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment. They also can't keep such uninsured patients waiting, even if their problem isn't an emergency. Nor can they discharge them until they're fully stabilized and have safe transportation. More, hospitals must post EMTALA signs in Spanish and English. The law isn't limited to ERs.
Hospitals must accept illegals at any facility on campus — including outpatient clinics and doctor's offices — located within 250 yards of the main buildings. Hospitals end up treating uninsured illegals for the sniffles and other nonurgent care, and pass that exorbitant cost on to the insured, the Government Accountability Office has found.
Resulting overcrowding leads to delays in "care for patients with true emergency needs."This unfunded federal mandate has placed a heavy and unfair financial burden on more than 1,500 hospitals across the country, according to HHS data, costing billions in unpaid bills by some estimates. Many eat losses and eventually go out of business like they're doing in droves in California, which has seen 85 hospital closures in the last decade. An additional 55 facilities have shut down ERs. The state ranks last in the country in access to emergency care and last in ERs per capita, making it woefully unprepared to respond to a major earthquake or terror attack.
Border hospitals are the hardest-hit. By law, they have to treat even illegals injured while crossing the border. Each year, hundreds of them pour into the ER at El Centro Regional Medical Center near San Diego with fractures sustained while climbing the fence or eluding border patrols in high-speed car chases. Others suffer from multiple organ failures from dehydration.
Many abuse the system with encouragement from groups like Maldef and La Raza, which have spread the word about EMTALA. In Texas, hospitals are flooded with walk-in mothers in labor showing up in the ER to have their anchor babies. Some 80% of the births at Houston's Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital are to illegal immigrants. In Fort Worth, it's about 70%.
At a recent town hall meeting, President Obama shot down tort reform because, as he argued, Texas has tort reform and one of its cities — McAllen — still has "the highest health care costs in the country." McAllen also is one of the most heavily trafficked border areas in the country, a little fact Obama failed to mention. The border patrol nabs 75,000 illegals there a year. They're the ones caught; others flood McAllen hospitals.
Overutilization of ER services by illegals is crippling the area's major hospital system, including McAllen Medical Center and Edinburg Regional Medical Center. The South Texas Health System eats $140 million a year in free care, and 60%-70% of those unpaid costs are in the ER.
Some 40% of the babies born at McAllen Medical last year were to illegals. That's nearly 2,400 babies who were given instant citizenship. And their mothers instantly qualified for U.S. welfare. Many of them, McAllen Medical CEO Joe Riley says, were "mothers about to give birth that walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river and in actual labor."
Actually, Miami boasts the highest medical costs in the country. McAllen is No. 2. Like McAllen, Miami hospitals are overrun by illegal Hispanic immigrants.Thanks to EMTALA, one hospital near Miami was forced to eat $1.5 million in unreimbursed care for an illegal alien from Guatemala. After three years of treatment, Martin Memorial Medical Center paid $30,000 to charter a jet to take Luis Jimenez to a medical facility in his home country. His family in turn sued the hospital.
Any health care overhaul should start with rewriting EMTALA. No one wants to refuse emergency care to indigent Mexicans who truly need it. But when you consider that they wire an average of $300 a month in remittances back to Mexico, that money could go a long way toward purchasing medical insurance.
At a minimum, the government could impose a fee on remittances to Mexico, and use the revenues to offset costs that border hospitals incur for the care of illegal immigrants.
Investor's BD is on the mark - a great article but very depressing. Keep the faith and join the battle for sanity in America. Vote out the liberal destructors.
Paying The Price For Illegal Care
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Friday, August 21, 2009 4:20 PM
PT*Health Care:*
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure <http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series26.aspx
Democrats are right that uncompensated emergency care for the uninsured is driving up costs. What they don't say is it's illegal immigrants who are bankrupting ERs, and the federal government is encouraging them. Last decade, the Clinton administration added teeth to a little-known Health and Human Services Department regulation mandating that hospitals provide emergency treatment even to illegals.
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can't even ask for a patient's immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment. They also can't keep such uninsured patients waiting, even if their problem isn't an emergency. Nor can they discharge them until they're fully stabilized and have safe transportation. More, hospitals must post EMTALA signs in Spanish and English. The law isn't limited to ERs.
Hospitals must accept illegals at any facility on campus — including outpatient clinics and doctor's offices — located within 250 yards of the main buildings. Hospitals end up treating uninsured illegals for the sniffles and other nonurgent care, and pass that exorbitant cost on to the insured, the Government Accountability Office has found.
Resulting overcrowding leads to delays in "care for patients with true emergency needs."This unfunded federal mandate has placed a heavy and unfair financial burden on more than 1,500 hospitals across the country, according to HHS data, costing billions in unpaid bills by some estimates. Many eat losses and eventually go out of business like they're doing in droves in California, which has seen 85 hospital closures in the last decade. An additional 55 facilities have shut down ERs. The state ranks last in the country in access to emergency care and last in ERs per capita, making it woefully unprepared to respond to a major earthquake or terror attack.
Border hospitals are the hardest-hit. By law, they have to treat even illegals injured while crossing the border. Each year, hundreds of them pour into the ER at El Centro Regional Medical Center near San Diego with fractures sustained while climbing the fence or eluding border patrols in high-speed car chases. Others suffer from multiple organ failures from dehydration.
Many abuse the system with encouragement from groups like Maldef and La Raza, which have spread the word about EMTALA. In Texas, hospitals are flooded with walk-in mothers in labor showing up in the ER to have their anchor babies. Some 80% of the births at Houston's Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital are to illegal immigrants. In Fort Worth, it's about 70%.
At a recent town hall meeting, President Obama shot down tort reform because, as he argued, Texas has tort reform and one of its cities — McAllen — still has "the highest health care costs in the country." McAllen also is one of the most heavily trafficked border areas in the country, a little fact Obama failed to mention. The border patrol nabs 75,000 illegals there a year. They're the ones caught; others flood McAllen hospitals.
Overutilization of ER services by illegals is crippling the area's major hospital system, including McAllen Medical Center and Edinburg Regional Medical Center. The South Texas Health System eats $140 million a year in free care, and 60%-70% of those unpaid costs are in the ER.
Some 40% of the babies born at McAllen Medical last year were to illegals. That's nearly 2,400 babies who were given instant citizenship. And their mothers instantly qualified for U.S. welfare. Many of them, McAllen Medical CEO Joe Riley says, were "mothers about to give birth that walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river and in actual labor."
Actually, Miami boasts the highest medical costs in the country. McAllen is No. 2. Like McAllen, Miami hospitals are overrun by illegal Hispanic immigrants.Thanks to EMTALA, one hospital near Miami was forced to eat $1.5 million in unreimbursed care for an illegal alien from Guatemala. After three years of treatment, Martin Memorial Medical Center paid $30,000 to charter a jet to take Luis Jimenez to a medical facility in his home country. His family in turn sued the hospital.
Any health care overhaul should start with rewriting EMTALA. No one wants to refuse emergency care to indigent Mexicans who truly need it. But when you consider that they wire an average of $300 a month in remittances back to Mexico, that money could go a long way toward purchasing medical insurance.
At a minimum, the government could impose a fee on remittances to Mexico, and use the revenues to offset costs that border hospitals incur for the care of illegal immigrants.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
ObamaCare Must Pass With Public Option : Liberals Mislead Voters
Here again the Heritage Foundation has their finger on the facts as they point out Pelosi and Reid will say or do anything to get this past, including misleading the public with false facts on the bill - they do not care what the public wants, this is about keeping the liberal left base as a strong point in the 2010 elections.
This has nothing to do with real health care change. It all about getting and keeping power. The public be damned!
Left pushes Obamacare 'by any legislative means necessary'
The more Americans learn about the Left's big-government health care takeover, the less they like it. According to the latest NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll, 42 percent of Americans disapprove of the proposal altogether, and 47 percent reject the creation of a government-run health insurance "option."
» Why the "public option" is bad, no matter what its form
"Facing this cratering of public support, the left in Congress is now considering abandoning moderates and independents to pass their narrow partisan ideal of health reform," Heritage's Conn Carroll writes in Thursday's Morning Bell.
» Sign-up to receive your daily Morning Bell updates.
Why the rush? Andy Stern, a Big Labor ally of President Obama's, warns that the failure to pass this health care reform legislation may hurt the Left in the next congressional election cycle. "I think we're talking losing control of Congress… [The failure of health-care reform] would totally empower Republicans to kill all change."
Since there appears to be little chance of bipartisan support for the liberal proposal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised to pursue "any legislative means necessary" to pass the bill. This could involve the use of reconciliation, a legislative tactic that allows the Senate to pass legislation with a bare majority.
However, the process of reconciliation is designated for budget-related measures, which is why the Democrats now propose splitting the health care bill into two parts: one for new taxes and spending and one for new rules and regulations. And the Left argues that the big-government insurance "option" is a budget item and thus eligible for reconciliation.
This "public option" may be a deal-breaker. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday that "there's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option."
In the meantime, "some congressmen and senators will say whatever it takes to calm things down," writes Heritage Distinguished Fellow and former congressman Ernest Istook. "Even if it's misleading."
"Don't believe it," warns Istook. These members need a serious "dose of reality." Get your dose of reality from The Heritage Foundation's FixHealthCarePolicy.com.
This has nothing to do with real health care change. It all about getting and keeping power. The public be damned!
Left pushes Obamacare 'by any legislative means necessary'
The more Americans learn about the Left's big-government health care takeover, the less they like it. According to the latest NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll, 42 percent of Americans disapprove of the proposal altogether, and 47 percent reject the creation of a government-run health insurance "option."
» Why the "public option" is bad, no matter what its form
"Facing this cratering of public support, the left in Congress is now considering abandoning moderates and independents to pass their narrow partisan ideal of health reform," Heritage's Conn Carroll writes in Thursday's Morning Bell.
» Sign-up to receive your daily Morning Bell updates.
Why the rush? Andy Stern, a Big Labor ally of President Obama's, warns that the failure to pass this health care reform legislation may hurt the Left in the next congressional election cycle. "I think we're talking losing control of Congress… [The failure of health-care reform] would totally empower Republicans to kill all change."
Since there appears to be little chance of bipartisan support for the liberal proposal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised to pursue "any legislative means necessary" to pass the bill. This could involve the use of reconciliation, a legislative tactic that allows the Senate to pass legislation with a bare majority.
However, the process of reconciliation is designated for budget-related measures, which is why the Democrats now propose splitting the health care bill into two parts: one for new taxes and spending and one for new rules and regulations. And the Left argues that the big-government insurance "option" is a budget item and thus eligible for reconciliation.
This "public option" may be a deal-breaker. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday that "there's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option."
In the meantime, "some congressmen and senators will say whatever it takes to calm things down," writes Heritage Distinguished Fellow and former congressman Ernest Istook. "Even if it's misleading."
"Don't believe it," warns Istook. These members need a serious "dose of reality." Get your dose of reality from The Heritage Foundation's FixHealthCarePolicy.com.
Wisconsin Hit Hard by Waxman/Markey Cap & Tax Proposal
Little wonder why the people of this state will not want to have another tax that will kill any hope of a future for themselves or their family for decades to come. And only so one party to gain power that will last indefinitely. This proposal in not about reducing carbon emessions, this about taking more control away from the population and giving to government. See this as freedoms lost
This is just what we want for our state - the chart show just how bad the insanity will affect our futures. Do we care? Nah! As many in our capital of Wisconsin believe, Madison, they want to pay more in taxes as this is what's best for the state - make it more fair - spread out the wealth so everyone can be the same.
What this means is making sure the unproductive have all of the same advantages as the productive. What could be more fair than that? No one lives in a nice house, no one has a nice car, or a car at all, no one can go on vacation or get a good education. We all can stand in line and dream of how things use to be. Initiative, hard work and responsibility lead to a better life. Real hope and real dreams for a future. You wonder how did this happen? Look in a mirror if you voted for Obama.
Marxist socialism does not lend itself to anyone having a future.
How will cap-and-tax affect your state?
A new study released by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis reveals the tremendous costs and energy price spikes that Wisconsin residents will incur should Congress enact the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation.
"Inevitably the bill will affect each state differently," explains Heritage's energy and economic policy team. "Some states are more energy-intensive than others, and some rely a great deal on manufacturing to fuel their economies. Regardless, the costs in every state are significant."
» Find out how the legislation will affect Wisconsin residents
Waxman-Markey's financial burden will eventually trickle down to individual families. Heritage experts predict annual energy costs for a family of four to grow by $1,241 -- $4,609 if you include the new taxes -- forcing families to reduce consumption of goods and services by $3,000 each year as incomes and savings fall.
This forced cutback will hurt job growth and ultimately weaken the economy, leaving America approximately $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035.
And all of these costs will get us "no more than a 0.2 degree (Celsius) moderation in world temperature increases by 2100 and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050." That's certainly not much of an environmental benefit, especially considering the adverse impact the bill imposes on American families.
Friday, August 28, 2009
In Memoriam To Ted Kennedy
Ted was everything that a true Representative of the people shouldn't be and yet the liberal community closed their collective eyes and hailed him a hero. Only a liberal could get away with this. Only a liberal Democrat could do the things that he did and get a free pass.
It seems to prove that 'the worst that a person can be is the best way to get ahead in the Democrat part'.
(Author Unknown)
An old country preacher.....had a teenage son, and it was getting time the boy should give some thought to choosing a profession. Like many young Men his age, the boy didn't really know what he wanted to do, and he didn't seem too concerned about it. One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an experiment. He went into the boy's room and placed on his study table four objects.
1. A Bible.....?
2. A silver dollar.....?
3. A bottle of whisky.....?
4. And a Playboy magazine.....?'
I'll just hide behind the door,' the old preacher said to himself. 'When he comes home from school today, I'll see which object he picks up.
If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what a blessing that would be!
If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a business man, and that would be okay, too.
But if he picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunken bum, and Lord, what a shame that would be.
And worst of all if he picks up that magazine he's going to be a skirt-chasing womanizer.'
The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's foot-steps as he entered the house whistling and headed for his room.The boy tossed his books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the objects on the table.
With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them. Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm. He picked up the silver dollar and dropped into his pocket. He uncorked the bottle and took a big drink, while he admired this month's centerfold.
'Lord have mercy,' the old preacher disgustedly whispered. 'He's gonna run for Congress.'
It seems to prove that 'the worst that a person can be is the best way to get ahead in the Democrat part'.
(Author Unknown)
An old country preacher.....had a teenage son, and it was getting time the boy should give some thought to choosing a profession. Like many young Men his age, the boy didn't really know what he wanted to do, and he didn't seem too concerned about it. One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an experiment. He went into the boy's room and placed on his study table four objects.
1. A Bible.....?
2. A silver dollar.....?
3. A bottle of whisky.....?
4. And a Playboy magazine.....?'
I'll just hide behind the door,' the old preacher said to himself. 'When he comes home from school today, I'll see which object he picks up.
If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what a blessing that would be!
If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a business man, and that would be okay, too.
But if he picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunken bum, and Lord, what a shame that would be.
And worst of all if he picks up that magazine he's going to be a skirt-chasing womanizer.'
The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's foot-steps as he entered the house whistling and headed for his room.The boy tossed his books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the objects on the table.
With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them. Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm. He picked up the silver dollar and dropped into his pocket. He uncorked the bottle and took a big drink, while he admired this month's centerfold.
'Lord have mercy,' the old preacher disgustedly whispered. 'He's gonna run for Congress.'
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Liberals On ObamaCare : Misinformation To Hide Real Agenda
More good information from the League of American Voters on Obamacare and how the lies of the liberal left Democrats are trying to steal the American dream.
Dear Friend:
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool? You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people. Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'. This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan. That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well. Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system. So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts. More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational." The truth is that Obamacare would admit almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.
You can see the ad by Going Here Now
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels." More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare. They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines. Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'” Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."
Expose the lies — Go Here Now.
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs is Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan. Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today.
This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare. "Every American who wants to stop Obamacare should join with the League," Morris says. "They have the best strategy to stop it from becoming law."
Just two weeks ago, the League's powerful new TV ad went on the air. Thanks to your help, it's already running in 12 states — and it is affecting millions of people. We believe it is one reason some Democrats are starting to retreat.
But our job is not done. We must fight the lies. We must expose the dangers of Obamacare to all Americans. Please act today by joining the League and donating to us today.
To Donate Go Here Now
Thank you.
Dear Friend:
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool? You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people. Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'. This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan. That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well. Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system. So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts. More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational." The truth is that Obamacare would admit almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors.
You can see the ad by Going Here Now
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels." More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare. They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines. Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'” Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."
Expose the lies — Go Here Now.
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs is Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan. Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today.
This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare. "Every American who wants to stop Obamacare should join with the League," Morris says. "They have the best strategy to stop it from becoming law."
Just two weeks ago, the League's powerful new TV ad went on the air. Thanks to your help, it's already running in 12 states — and it is affecting millions of people. We believe it is one reason some Democrats are starting to retreat.
But our job is not done. We must fight the lies. We must expose the dangers of Obamacare to all Americans. Please act today by joining the League and donating to us today.
To Donate Go Here Now
Thank you.
Progress In Afghanistan : Election A Positive Sign
Good work here by the Heritage Foundation, as usual -
Progress in Afghanistan
Last Thursday, war-torn Afghanistan held a presidential election. Its outcome will weigh heavily on America's efforts to defeat the Taliban terrorists. Although the results remain unknown, Heritage experts James Phillips and Lisa Curtis applauded the electoral process and respectable voter turnout as a significant "blow to the Taliban, since it demonstrates that Afghans support the democratic process and not the Taliban's version of harsh Islamist rule."
Despite this important show of democracy, however, Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes reminds the administration that success in Afghanistan will only result from strategic planning to build effective coalitions with Afghan leadership. The current challenge the administration faces is devising a way to "integrate successfully its nation-building efforts at the central government level with the much harder work of dealing with local factions and tribes susceptible to Taliban intimidation.”
Leading up to the elections, Taliban terrorists ran a fierce propaganda campaign, threatening to dismember and disfigure voters. And while 135 violent incidents claimed at least 26 lives and dampened turnout somewhat, "voter turnout appears to have been respectable."
Incumbent President Hamid Karzai is running neck-and-neck with challenger Abdullah Abdullah after early vote tallies. If neither garners 50 percent of the vote, the candidates will go before voters again in a runoff election. In addition to underscoring a desire to confront the fear-mongering and corruption of the Taliban, Heritage experts believe the closeness of this election could help "bolster Afghans' faith in the democratic process by demonstrating it was a genuinely competitive campaign."
No matter who wins, however, "the real test will be the extent to which Afghan leaders can effectively cooperate after the elections to build a more stable and prosperous Afghanistan," writes Heritage Middle East expert Jim Phillips in The Foundry.
America's efforts in the region will largely depend on cohesion among a legitimately elected Afghan leadership. "America will not be able to stabilize Afghanistan and ensure it does not again turn into a terrorist safe haven," Phillips and Curtis write in a separate analysis, "unless it has an Afghan government partner with credibility among the people."
» Heritage's Lindsey Shaw explains how beating the militants in Pakistan is key to winning in Afghanistan.
Last week's election was certainly "a step in the right direction." But as Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes explains, this step must be followed by "devising a workable strategy on Afghanistan and sticking to it…for as long as necessary and no matter the political fallout."
Progress in Afghanistan
Last Thursday, war-torn Afghanistan held a presidential election. Its outcome will weigh heavily on America's efforts to defeat the Taliban terrorists. Although the results remain unknown, Heritage experts James Phillips and Lisa Curtis applauded the electoral process and respectable voter turnout as a significant "blow to the Taliban, since it demonstrates that Afghans support the democratic process and not the Taliban's version of harsh Islamist rule."
Despite this important show of democracy, however, Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes reminds the administration that success in Afghanistan will only result from strategic planning to build effective coalitions with Afghan leadership. The current challenge the administration faces is devising a way to "integrate successfully its nation-building efforts at the central government level with the much harder work of dealing with local factions and tribes susceptible to Taliban intimidation.”
Leading up to the elections, Taliban terrorists ran a fierce propaganda campaign, threatening to dismember and disfigure voters. And while 135 violent incidents claimed at least 26 lives and dampened turnout somewhat, "voter turnout appears to have been respectable."
Incumbent President Hamid Karzai is running neck-and-neck with challenger Abdullah Abdullah after early vote tallies. If neither garners 50 percent of the vote, the candidates will go before voters again in a runoff election. In addition to underscoring a desire to confront the fear-mongering and corruption of the Taliban, Heritage experts believe the closeness of this election could help "bolster Afghans' faith in the democratic process by demonstrating it was a genuinely competitive campaign."
No matter who wins, however, "the real test will be the extent to which Afghan leaders can effectively cooperate after the elections to build a more stable and prosperous Afghanistan," writes Heritage Middle East expert Jim Phillips in The Foundry.
America's efforts in the region will largely depend on cohesion among a legitimately elected Afghan leadership. "America will not be able to stabilize Afghanistan and ensure it does not again turn into a terrorist safe haven," Phillips and Curtis write in a separate analysis, "unless it has an Afghan government partner with credibility among the people."
» Heritage's Lindsey Shaw explains how beating the militants in Pakistan is key to winning in Afghanistan.
Last week's election was certainly "a step in the right direction." But as Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes explains, this step must be followed by "devising a workable strategy on Afghanistan and sticking to it…for as long as necessary and no matter the political fallout."
Michael Yon Reports : Afghanistan Medical Miracle
Michael has always delivered excellent analysis on what is actually happening in Iraq and Afghanistan - this one is very good. A true medical miracle delivered by the United States Military for a British soldier.
19 August 2009
Greetings from Afghanistan, There is every indication that this war will become worse than I saw in Iraq. Very dangerous here. Too much happening to explain quickly. Will require ongoing series of dozens of dispatches. (Am on it.) Would need 24/7 head-cam to truly capture this. Meanwhile, please see this very interesting dispatch: Do Americans Care about British Soldiers?--
Your Writer, Michael Yon PS
Please sign up for my Twitter.com updates at "Michael_Yon" (not Michael Yon). Please remember that this website accepts no advertisement and is dependent on your support. Please send any regular mail for Michael to: Michael YonP.O. Box 5553Winter Haven, Fl 33880
Michael's newsletters are an opt-in only newsletter. If you are receiving a copy of this newsletter it is because you have opted-in. If you are no longer interested in receiving Michael's updates please see below.
Michael Yon's Dispatches is an Opt-in only Newsletter. If you are receiving this newsletter then you Opted in.Unsubscribe mattheis1@comcast.net from this list.
19 August 2009
Greetings from Afghanistan, There is every indication that this war will become worse than I saw in Iraq. Very dangerous here. Too much happening to explain quickly. Will require ongoing series of dozens of dispatches. (Am on it.) Would need 24/7 head-cam to truly capture this. Meanwhile, please see this very interesting dispatch: Do Americans Care about British Soldiers?--
Your Writer, Michael Yon PS
Please sign up for my Twitter.com updates at "Michael_Yon" (not Michael Yon). Please remember that this website accepts no advertisement and is dependent on your support. Please send any regular mail for Michael to: Michael YonP.O. Box 5553Winter Haven, Fl 33880
Michael's newsletters are an opt-in only newsletter. If you are receiving a copy of this newsletter it is because you have opted-in. If you are no longer interested in receiving Michael's updates please see below.
Michael Yon's Dispatches is an Opt-in only Newsletter. If you are receiving this newsletter then you Opted in.Unsubscribe mattheis1@comcast.net from this list.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Obama's Agenda Seen As Counterproductive
Fouad Ajmi's article here touches on the very essences of the Obama decent into reality.
Obama's highway to success has turned on to a dead end. To think he got elected due to fear that America was headed in the wrong direction was just smoke screen by the liberal left and jammed down our throats by the main stream media. A media that is wholly in the grips of the Marxist left and the liberal Democrat party.
Little wonder then such a large proportion of America believed Obama would right all wrongs. But now they see he must be taken at face value when he said, " these are just words, just words". The smoke screen is starting to lift and the general public is shocked by what they see and hear coming from the "One" that was to save the world.
Keep the faith
Obama's Summer of Discontent
By FOUAD AJAMI
<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=FOUAD+AJAMI&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
So we are to have a French health-care system without a French tradition of political protest. It is odd that American liberalism, in a veritable state of insurrection during the Bush presidency, now seeks political quiescence. These “townhallers” who have come forth to challenge ObamaCare have been labeled “evil-mongers” (Harry Reid), “un-American” (Nancy Pelosi), agitators and rowdies and worse.
A political class, and a media elite, that glamorized the protest against the Iraq war, that branded the Bush presidency as a reign of usurpation, now wishes to be done with the tumult of political debate. President Barack Obama himself, the community organizer par excellence, is full of lament that the "loudest voices" are running away with the national debate. Liberalism in righteous opposition, liberalism in power: The rules have changed.
It was true to script, and to necessity, that Mr. Obama would try to push through his sweeping program—the change in the health-care system, a huge budget deficit, the stimulus package, the takeover of the automotive industry—in record time. He and his handlers must have feared that the spell would soon be broken, that the coalition that carried Mr. Obama to power was destined to come apart, that a country anxious and frightened in the fall of 2008 could recover its poise and self-confidence. Historically, this republic, unlike the Old World and the command economies of the Third World, had trusted the society rather than the state. In a perilous moment, that balance had shifted, and Mr. Obama was the beneficiary of that shift.
So our new president wanted a fundamental overhaul of the health-care system—17% of our GDP—without a serious debate, and without "loud voices." It is akin to government by emergency decrees. How dare those townhallers (the voters) heckle Arlen Specter! Americans eager to rein in this runaway populism were now guilty of lèse-majesté by talking back to the political class.
We were led to this summer of discontent by the very nature of the coalition that brought Mr. Obama, and the political class around him, to power, and by the circumstances of his victory. The man was elected amid economic distress. Faith in the country's institutions, perhaps in the free-enterprise system itself, had given way. Mr. Obama had ridden that distress. His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.
The leader would be different things to different people. The Obama coalition was the coming together of disparate groups: the white professional liberals seeking absolution for the country in the election of an African-American man, the opponents of the Iraq war who grew more strident as the project in Iraq was taking root, the African-American community that had been invested in the Clintons and then came around out of an understandable pride in one of its own.
The last segment of the electorate to flock to the Obama banners were the blue-collar workers who delivered him Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. He was not their man. They fully knew that he didn't share their culture. They were, by his portrait, clinging to their guns and religion, but the promise of economic help, and of protectionism, carried the day with them.
The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. The devotees could not make up their minds. In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama was tall and thin and from Illinois, and the historic campaign was launched out of Springfield. The oath of office was taken on the Lincoln Bible. Like FDR, he had a huge economic challenge, and he better get it done, repair and streamline the economy in his "first hundred days." Like JFK, he was young and stylish, with a young family.
All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership. In reality, he was who he was, a Chicago politician who had done well by his opposition to the Iraq war. He had run a skillful campaign, and had met a Clinton machine that had run out of tricks and a McCain campaign that never understood the nature of the contest of 2008. He was no FDR, and besides the history of the depression—the real history—bears little resemblance to the received narrative of the nation instantly rescued, in the course of 100 days or 200 days, by an interventionist state. The economic distress had been so deep and relentless that FDR began his second term, in 1937, with the economy still in the grip of recession.
Nor was JFK about style. He had known military service and combat, and familial loss; he had run in 1960 as a hawk committed to the nation's victory in the Cold War. He and his rival, Richard Nixon, shared a fundamental outlook on American power and its burdens. Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can't rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can't be his. Mr. Obama isn't Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.
In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton's wasn't. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare. Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.
The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan's view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.
In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path. Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn't underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.
American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place.
In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics. Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama’s charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging.
Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation’s recovery of its self-confidence.—
Mr. Ajami teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also an adjunct fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15
Obama's highway to success has turned on to a dead end. To think he got elected due to fear that America was headed in the wrong direction was just smoke screen by the liberal left and jammed down our throats by the main stream media. A media that is wholly in the grips of the Marxist left and the liberal Democrat party.
Little wonder then such a large proportion of America believed Obama would right all wrongs. But now they see he must be taken at face value when he said, " these are just words, just words". The smoke screen is starting to lift and the general public is shocked by what they see and hear coming from the "One" that was to save the world.
Keep the faith
Obama's Summer of Discontent
By FOUAD AJAMI
<http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=FOUAD+AJAMI&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND>
So we are to have a French health-care system without a French tradition of political protest. It is odd that American liberalism, in a veritable state of insurrection during the Bush presidency, now seeks political quiescence. These “townhallers” who have come forth to challenge ObamaCare have been labeled “evil-mongers” (Harry Reid), “un-American” (Nancy Pelosi), agitators and rowdies and worse.
A political class, and a media elite, that glamorized the protest against the Iraq war, that branded the Bush presidency as a reign of usurpation, now wishes to be done with the tumult of political debate. President Barack Obama himself, the community organizer par excellence, is full of lament that the "loudest voices" are running away with the national debate. Liberalism in righteous opposition, liberalism in power: The rules have changed.
It was true to script, and to necessity, that Mr. Obama would try to push through his sweeping program—the change in the health-care system, a huge budget deficit, the stimulus package, the takeover of the automotive industry—in record time. He and his handlers must have feared that the spell would soon be broken, that the coalition that carried Mr. Obama to power was destined to come apart, that a country anxious and frightened in the fall of 2008 could recover its poise and self-confidence. Historically, this republic, unlike the Old World and the command economies of the Third World, had trusted the society rather than the state. In a perilous moment, that balance had shifted, and Mr. Obama was the beneficiary of that shift.
So our new president wanted a fundamental overhaul of the health-care system—17% of our GDP—without a serious debate, and without "loud voices." It is akin to government by emergency decrees. How dare those townhallers (the voters) heckle Arlen Specter! Americans eager to rein in this runaway populism were now guilty of lèse-majesté by talking back to the political class.
We were led to this summer of discontent by the very nature of the coalition that brought Mr. Obama, and the political class around him, to power, and by the circumstances of his victory. The man was elected amid economic distress. Faith in the country's institutions, perhaps in the free-enterprise system itself, had given way. Mr. Obama had ridden that distress. His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.
The leader would be different things to different people. The Obama coalition was the coming together of disparate groups: the white professional liberals seeking absolution for the country in the election of an African-American man, the opponents of the Iraq war who grew more strident as the project in Iraq was taking root, the African-American community that had been invested in the Clintons and then came around out of an understandable pride in one of its own.
The last segment of the electorate to flock to the Obama banners were the blue-collar workers who delivered him Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. He was not their man. They fully knew that he didn't share their culture. They were, by his portrait, clinging to their guns and religion, but the promise of economic help, and of protectionism, carried the day with them.
The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic. The devotees could not make up their minds. In a newly minted U.S. senator from Illinois, they saw the embodiment of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Like Lincoln, Mr. Obama was tall and thin and from Illinois, and the historic campaign was launched out of Springfield. The oath of office was taken on the Lincoln Bible. Like FDR, he had a huge economic challenge, and he better get it done, repair and streamline the economy in his "first hundred days." Like JFK, he was young and stylish, with a young family.
All this hero-worship before Mr. Obama met his first test of leadership. In reality, he was who he was, a Chicago politician who had done well by his opposition to the Iraq war. He had run a skillful campaign, and had met a Clinton machine that had run out of tricks and a McCain campaign that never understood the nature of the contest of 2008. He was no FDR, and besides the history of the depression—the real history—bears little resemblance to the received narrative of the nation instantly rescued, in the course of 100 days or 200 days, by an interventionist state. The economic distress had been so deep and relentless that FDR began his second term, in 1937, with the economy still in the grip of recession.
Nor was JFK about style. He had known military service and combat, and familial loss; he had run in 1960 as a hawk committed to the nation's victory in the Cold War. He and his rival, Richard Nixon, shared a fundamental outlook on American power and its burdens. Now that realism about Mr. Obama has begun to sink in, these iconic figures of history had best be left alone. They can't rescue the Obama presidency. Their magic can't be his. Mr. Obama isn't Lincoln with a BlackBerry. Those great personages are made by history, in the course of history, and not by the spinners or the smitten talking heads.
In one of the revealing moments of the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama rightly observed that the Reagan presidency was a transformational presidency in a way Clinton's wasn't. And by that Reagan precedent, that Reagan standard, the faults of the Obama presidency are laid bare. Ronald Reagan, it should be recalled, had been swept into office by a wave of dissatisfaction with Jimmy Carter and his failures. At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.
The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan's view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.
In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path. Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn't underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.
American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place.
In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics. Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama’s charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging.
Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation’s recovery of its self-confidence.—
Mr. Ajami teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also an adjunct fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Gleen Beck Boycott Rages On
The anti-Gleen Beck outrage continues by the Marxist left Democrats - these people are truly insane.
Anti-Beck Group Labeled George Bush 'Racist'
Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:47 PM
One glaring inconsistency in the Color of Change group’s demand that Glenn Beck’s head be served up on a silver charger: Their Web site sells “Kanye Was Right!” T-shirts.
Color of Change is pressuring advertisers to boycott Beck, after the Fox News host said that President Obama was “racist” following the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates.
Rapper Kanye West leveled accusations of racism against former President George W. Bush during a nationwide fundraiser for Hurricane Katrina victims that aired on NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC in September 2005.
During that broadcast, West appeared to allege that the Bush administration’s response to the Hurricane Katrina aftermath was intentionally slow because the crisis disproportionately affected poor people and blacks.
He also suggested that first responders had been authorized to shoot African-Americans: “We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!”
Later in that broadcast West added for good measure: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” The network then abruptly cut away to another presenter. The controversial T-shirt Color of Change is selling is emblazoned with the words “Kanye Was Right.” The T-shirt appears to imply agreement with the most notorious statement the rapper ever made. That would mean Color of Change is not only endorsing, but also profiting from, West’s inflammatory statement.
“Kanye was right about what?” challenges DefendGlenn Web site creator John Hill. “That President Bush gave the National Guard permission to kill black people? It’s ridiculous. If any group on the right had said the things they’ve said, they would have been dismissed as a hate group long ago. So for them to be taken seriously with this ad boycott is absurd.”
Conservative journalist Matthew Vadum, the Capital Research Center’s senior editor, alleges that Color of Change “incites hatred for profit and to promote its race-obsessed agenda and that’s what it’s doing to Glenn Beck … “
Vadum adds that the group “is trying to depict Beck as some kind of a white nationalist crazy, and clearly he’s not.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Anti-Beck Group Labeled George Bush 'Racist'
Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:47 PM
One glaring inconsistency in the Color of Change group’s demand that Glenn Beck’s head be served up on a silver charger: Their Web site sells “Kanye Was Right!” T-shirts.
Color of Change is pressuring advertisers to boycott Beck, after the Fox News host said that President Obama was “racist” following the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates.
Rapper Kanye West leveled accusations of racism against former President George W. Bush during a nationwide fundraiser for Hurricane Katrina victims that aired on NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC in September 2005.
During that broadcast, West appeared to allege that the Bush administration’s response to the Hurricane Katrina aftermath was intentionally slow because the crisis disproportionately affected poor people and blacks.
He also suggested that first responders had been authorized to shoot African-Americans: “We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!”
Later in that broadcast West added for good measure: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” The network then abruptly cut away to another presenter. The controversial T-shirt Color of Change is selling is emblazoned with the words “Kanye Was Right.” The T-shirt appears to imply agreement with the most notorious statement the rapper ever made. That would mean Color of Change is not only endorsing, but also profiting from, West’s inflammatory statement.
“Kanye was right about what?” challenges DefendGlenn Web site creator John Hill. “That President Bush gave the National Guard permission to kill black people? It’s ridiculous. If any group on the right had said the things they’ve said, they would have been dismissed as a hate group long ago. So for them to be taken seriously with this ad boycott is absurd.”
Conservative journalist Matthew Vadum, the Capital Research Center’s senior editor, alleges that Color of Change “incites hatred for profit and to promote its race-obsessed agenda and that’s what it’s doing to Glenn Beck … “
Vadum adds that the group “is trying to depict Beck as some kind of a white nationalist crazy, and clearly he’s not.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Gleen Beck Boycott Backfires On Democrat Left
What is really good news here with the Gleen Beck boycott by the Marxist liberal socialists, The Color of Change group, the silent majority, the Conservatives and true Republicans, NOT Rinos, and most 'fence sitters', are on the move attacking these monsters, and will continue to the make a difference despite our spineless leaders in Washington and the Republican Party. I sure seems that the people are taking charge of their own fate. How cool is this!!!
The people of this country are actually taking charge of the debate. This is a dramatic change from what has been the norm - the liberal media controlling all information outlets and there by dictating what news was released to the public. All that has changed.
The Marxist Left liberal Democrats do not have a free hand any longer to do whatever they want and say anything they want without consequence.
Keep the faith - sound off, make your voice heard.
Backlash Against Boycott of Glenn Beck
Sunday, August 23, 2009 5:32 PM
By: David A. Patten
Glenn Beck signs copies of one of his best-selling books for a fan. The campaign to oust him began after Beck remarked that President Obama is a "racist" after the president’s chastising of the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. James Crowley for acting "stupidly" in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. (AP Photo)
A left-wing group’s effort to intimidate corporate advertisers on Fox News’ Glenn Beck show appears to be backfiring as it triggers a wave of support from grass-roots fans rushing to defend the popular TV personality from the attacks. Even before the liberal boycott of Glenn Beck began this summer, the best-selling author and TV host had became a ratings superstar, with his 5 p.m. cable news program pulling mega prime-time viewership numbers. Beck also had become a lightning rod for liberal groups who didn’t like his anti-Obama message and his staggeringly large audience.
But now Beck’s fame seems to be growing even more as a spontaneous, nationwide effort has sprung up among fans to defend their hero, including Web sites, Facebook groups, homegrown e-mail blasts, and individual telephone campaigns. The reaction in support of Beck comes in the wake of the advertiser-boycott campaign launched by Color of Change, an African-American advocacy organization with close ties to the Obama White House.
Although the group garnered some success initially, it appears that it is making claims that don’t match reality, with several major companies claiming they never joined any boycott of Beck’s show. Major advertisers such as Wal-Mart, CVS, ConAgra, and Sargento have directed Fox News not to air their ads during the Glenn Beck Program, according to Color of Change.
The group probably would have been dismissed as a gadfly were it not for its high-level connections to the Obama White House. Color of Change co-founder Van Jones now works in the Obama administration as the president's "green jobs czar." Beck has been a fearless critic of both President Obama and Jones, whose association with Color of Change was said to have ended in December 2007.
Color of Change Executive Director James Rucker tells Newsmax that his organization wants Beck silenced for his July remark on Fox & Friends that Obama -s "racist" — an opinion Beck voiced in the context of the president’s chastising of the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. James Crowley for acting "stupidly" in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.
"It's preposterous and absurd," Rucker tells Newsmax of Beck's utterance. "It's insulting to black Americans, and it corrupts honest debate. Anyone who uses such a platform to spew such vitriol, whether Glenn Beck or anyone else, has no place on the air, and we at Color Of Change would use every resource available to us to remove corporate sponsorship from their platform."
Conservative Backlash
Beck's enemies on the left, however, have awakened a sleeping giant in their campaign to destroy Beck. Like the town hall protesters, Beck's supporters are rising up to declare they're fed up and not going to take it anymore. And joining in their counterattack are some of the most respected voices in conservative media.
"Glenn Beck is to be congratulated," New York Times best-selling author Peter Schweizer tells Newsmax. "They only go after you when you are being effective — he must really be causing them problems." And Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative Media Research Council watchdog organization, says, "I think it tells us a lot about the style of politics coming from the organized left and this White House. They want to be so strenuous in going after their adversaries that they have a take-no-prisoners approach. I think it would be unthinkable if conservatives, particularly those affiliated with the Bush White House, had gone after a media figure associated with one of the other networks."
Conservative icon and direct-marketing expert Richard Viguerie tells Newsmax: "That's Chicago politics. We're seeing the Chicago-ization of politics. We hear how dangerous it is for some of these people to come in the vicinity of the president with a weapon. Then we see the chairman of a powerful committee, Henry Waxman, issuing subpoenas to 50 insurance executives for their corporate records. That's how they play the game. They will use any method they can to attain power and then hold onto that power. They tried to do the same with Rush Limbaugh, but Rush Limbaugh is too big for them to handle. This is how Democrats operate."
On Thursday, DC Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott wrote: "Funny, I don't recall that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression to everybody except those whose opinions the four members of ColorofChange.org find ‘repulsive and divisive.’"
Tapscott called on readers to conduct a reverse boycott against the companies bowing to left-wing pressure, who are pulling their ads from Beck's program. Those companies, Tapscott says, "are aiding and abetting a vicious, political campaign to slander him by an outfit apparently created for just such a purpose."
A reverse boycott is precisely what's taking place.
On Aug. 16, Beck supporter John Hill launched a Web site, DefendGlenn.com. Five days later, the site had recorded 1.9 million visits, racked up 1,033 Twitter followers, and garnered 5,800 user comments on its "Support Wall," Hill says. "Let your voice be heard! Fight back against the lies and the extremist boycott of Glenn Beck," the site declares. DefendGlenn.com provides contact information for companies that have pulled their advertising. It also lists and encourages the companies who have stuck with the Beck program.
"We launched DefendGlenn basically just to counter a lot of the distortions and lies that were put out by this group Color of Change, which we saw weren't being countered at all," Hill tells Newsmax. Among the messages fans left on the DefendGlenn "Support Wall" to show their support for Beck: "Freedom of speech applies to all speech, even those from the right," wrote Matt Elmore of Woodbridge, Va. "You are not alone, but like Gen. Washington, out in front of the troops," wrote Michael Lyon of Estero, Fla. "Never give up,” Leonor Godwin of Stephenville, Texas, wrote him. “They are trying to break you. You are our inspiration and our rock."
Hill also tells Newsmax he has received 5,000 e-mails from people who tell him they are canceling their Geico insurance policy because the company has joined the boycott against Beck, and about 6,500 e-mails from consumers who say they never will buy a Sargento product again.
"I don't want to do that," Hill tells Newsmax. "I think boycotts are stupid. But if they're going to join the boycott, boycotts work two ways. Earlier in the week, the companies were saying, 'Yeah we're dropping the ads.’ But as soon as people started getting in touch with them, they started denying they were dropping anything.'"
Other Beck supporters also are getting into the act. They include an upstate New York stay-at-home mom who became alarmed when she saw the orchestrated campaign to make one of the most independent voices in American media a pariah. Already a member of the 912 organization Beck initiated to recapture the nonpartisan spirit of unity the nation experienced after the 9/11 terror attacks, she created SupportGlennBeck.com.
The site includes a petition that states: “Through his radio and television show, he promotes God, family, and country — which resonates with a majority of Americans. “There are some people who have an ideological problem with Glenn Beck. These people will not be satisfied until voices such as Glenn’s are silenced. For the millions of us who share Glenn’s values, there is nothing more frightening than losing our forum,” the petition states.
The growing pro-Beck movement has also reached social networking sites. One example: Beck supporter Doug Edelman of St. Louis has established a new Facebook group, “Defend Glenn Beck Against Thug Inspired Boycott.” During its first week, more than 790 members joined the group, which includes a statement of support for Beck and lists contact information for companies that are said to be boycotting his show.
Exaggerated Boycotts
The anti-Beck activists claim that more than 20 advertisers have dropped the Beck program. Hill and others on the pro-Beck side dispute say Color of Change has greatly exaggerated the effect of its boycott. Many of the companies the organization lists now deny they have anything to do with the boycott. Newsmax contacted Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson, and Radio Shack, all of which said they have not directed Fox News to pull their ads from the Glenn Beck Program, as Color of Change has stated. In fact, these companies’ representatives tell Newsmax that, as a matter of corporate policy, they never did advertise on the Glenn Beck Program and ask how they could boycott a program they never placed an ad on in the first place.
Another company, State Farm, tells Newsmax that its ad was never supposed to air on the Glenn Beck Program. State Farm has a longstanding company policy against advertising on any "political or opinion programming," its spokesman says. Having discovered the error, State Farm says, it will not be advertising on any cable talk show. And it is careful to emphasize it is not singling out Beck in this regard.
As State Farm’s response suggests, the net effect of the anti-Beck crusade probably will be fewer advertisers willing to advertise on the talk shows of any cable network. Consider, for example, the corporate response from Clorox. On Thursday, company executives wrote Hill stating: “After a comprehensive review of political talk shows across the spectrum, at this time we have made a decision not to advertise on political talk shows.”
Assuming the pro-Beck backlash continues, that probably means the activist campaign intended to hurt Beck will, ironically, damage Beck’s progressive competitors more than it hurts him.
Lost ads will impact smaller networks such as MSNBC far more than it will affect ratings juggernaut Fox News, industry sources say. Nearly 2.5 million viewers tuned in to Beck’s show in its 5 p.m. Eastern time slot last week, according to Mediabistro’s TV Newser. Beck’s ratings on Fox exceeded those of CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined. All of which calls into question whether advertiser boycotts work anyway.
“It’s funny because I think their calculation is that by going after advertisers they are going to affect his bottom line,” Schweizer says. “But this is a common misperception of liberals. Beck isn’t in this for the money. So even if they could succeed, they won’t silence him.”
Michael Harrison has seen plenty of media campaigns come and go as publisher of Talkers Magazine. “My guess,” he says, “is he will weather this storm.” “Beck expected to get hostile feedback, and a whole bunch of publicity, and he succeeded on both counts,” Harrison says. “People have the right to be offended and businesses have the right to spend their advertising dollars however they choose. Free speech guarantees the right of having an opinion without government censorship. It doesn’t guarantee that people won’t be angry and withhold their support. The free marketplace of ideas is not for the faint hearted!”
And for ratings giant Fox, Beck’s remarkable connection with viewers has made the free market a profitable one indeed. “The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network,” a Fox spokesman recently told Ad Age, “so there is no revenue lost.”
Below are companies listed on the DefendGlenn site as having joined the Color of Change boycott against Glenn Beck:
Ally Bank
President and CEO Mark B. Hales
(877) 247-2559
6985 Union Park Center
Midvale, Utah 84047
-------------------
Broadview Security (Brinks)
Robert B. Allen
(800) 445-0872
8880 Esters Blvd,
Irving, Texas 75063
-------------------
CVS Caremark Corp.
Thomas M. Ryan
(401) 765-1500
One CVS Drive
Woonsocket, R.I. 02895
------------------
Geico
Chairman and CEO Tony Nicely
(800) 861-8380
5260 Western Ave.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20815
-------------------
Healthy Choice Foods
A subsidiary of
ConAgra Foods Inc.
President and CEO Gary M. Rodkin
(402) 595-4000
1 ConAgra Drive
Omaha, Neb. 68102-5001
-------------------
Lawyers.com
A subsidiary of
LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
CEO Andrew Prozes
(800) 526-4902
121 Chanlon Road
New Providence, N.J. 07974
-------------------
Men's Wearhouse
Chairman and CEO George Zimmer
(281) 776-7200
6380 Rogerdale Road
Houston, Texas 77072
-------------------
Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
President and CEO Gregory Irace
(800) 981-2491
55 Corporate Drive
Bridgewater, N.J. 08807
-------------------
Sargento Foods Inc.
Chairman and CEO Louis Gentine
(800) 243-3737
One Persnickety Place
Plymouth, Wis. 53073
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
The people of this country are actually taking charge of the debate. This is a dramatic change from what has been the norm - the liberal media controlling all information outlets and there by dictating what news was released to the public. All that has changed.
The Marxist Left liberal Democrats do not have a free hand any longer to do whatever they want and say anything they want without consequence.
Keep the faith - sound off, make your voice heard.
Backlash Against Boycott of Glenn Beck
Sunday, August 23, 2009 5:32 PM
By: David A. Patten
Glenn Beck signs copies of one of his best-selling books for a fan. The campaign to oust him began after Beck remarked that President Obama is a "racist" after the president’s chastising of the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. James Crowley for acting "stupidly" in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. (AP Photo)
A left-wing group’s effort to intimidate corporate advertisers on Fox News’ Glenn Beck show appears to be backfiring as it triggers a wave of support from grass-roots fans rushing to defend the popular TV personality from the attacks. Even before the liberal boycott of Glenn Beck began this summer, the best-selling author and TV host had became a ratings superstar, with his 5 p.m. cable news program pulling mega prime-time viewership numbers. Beck also had become a lightning rod for liberal groups who didn’t like his anti-Obama message and his staggeringly large audience.
But now Beck’s fame seems to be growing even more as a spontaneous, nationwide effort has sprung up among fans to defend their hero, including Web sites, Facebook groups, homegrown e-mail blasts, and individual telephone campaigns. The reaction in support of Beck comes in the wake of the advertiser-boycott campaign launched by Color of Change, an African-American advocacy organization with close ties to the Obama White House.
Although the group garnered some success initially, it appears that it is making claims that don’t match reality, with several major companies claiming they never joined any boycott of Beck’s show. Major advertisers such as Wal-Mart, CVS, ConAgra, and Sargento have directed Fox News not to air their ads during the Glenn Beck Program, according to Color of Change.
The group probably would have been dismissed as a gadfly were it not for its high-level connections to the Obama White House. Color of Change co-founder Van Jones now works in the Obama administration as the president's "green jobs czar." Beck has been a fearless critic of both President Obama and Jones, whose association with Color of Change was said to have ended in December 2007.
Color of Change Executive Director James Rucker tells Newsmax that his organization wants Beck silenced for his July remark on Fox & Friends that Obama -s "racist" — an opinion Beck voiced in the context of the president’s chastising of the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. James Crowley for acting "stupidly" in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates.
"It's preposterous and absurd," Rucker tells Newsmax of Beck's utterance. "It's insulting to black Americans, and it corrupts honest debate. Anyone who uses such a platform to spew such vitriol, whether Glenn Beck or anyone else, has no place on the air, and we at Color Of Change would use every resource available to us to remove corporate sponsorship from their platform."
Conservative Backlash
Beck's enemies on the left, however, have awakened a sleeping giant in their campaign to destroy Beck. Like the town hall protesters, Beck's supporters are rising up to declare they're fed up and not going to take it anymore. And joining in their counterattack are some of the most respected voices in conservative media.
"Glenn Beck is to be congratulated," New York Times best-selling author Peter Schweizer tells Newsmax. "They only go after you when you are being effective — he must really be causing them problems." And Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative Media Research Council watchdog organization, says, "I think it tells us a lot about the style of politics coming from the organized left and this White House. They want to be so strenuous in going after their adversaries that they have a take-no-prisoners approach. I think it would be unthinkable if conservatives, particularly those affiliated with the Bush White House, had gone after a media figure associated with one of the other networks."
Conservative icon and direct-marketing expert Richard Viguerie tells Newsmax: "That's Chicago politics. We're seeing the Chicago-ization of politics. We hear how dangerous it is for some of these people to come in the vicinity of the president with a weapon. Then we see the chairman of a powerful committee, Henry Waxman, issuing subpoenas to 50 insurance executives for their corporate records. That's how they play the game. They will use any method they can to attain power and then hold onto that power. They tried to do the same with Rush Limbaugh, but Rush Limbaugh is too big for them to handle. This is how Democrats operate."
On Thursday, DC Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott wrote: "Funny, I don't recall that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression to everybody except those whose opinions the four members of ColorofChange.org find ‘repulsive and divisive.’"
Tapscott called on readers to conduct a reverse boycott against the companies bowing to left-wing pressure, who are pulling their ads from Beck's program. Those companies, Tapscott says, "are aiding and abetting a vicious, political campaign to slander him by an outfit apparently created for just such a purpose."
A reverse boycott is precisely what's taking place.
On Aug. 16, Beck supporter John Hill launched a Web site, DefendGlenn.com. Five days later, the site had recorded 1.9 million visits, racked up 1,033 Twitter followers, and garnered 5,800 user comments on its "Support Wall," Hill says. "Let your voice be heard! Fight back against the lies and the extremist boycott of Glenn Beck," the site declares. DefendGlenn.com provides contact information for companies that have pulled their advertising. It also lists and encourages the companies who have stuck with the Beck program.
"We launched DefendGlenn basically just to counter a lot of the distortions and lies that were put out by this group Color of Change, which we saw weren't being countered at all," Hill tells Newsmax. Among the messages fans left on the DefendGlenn "Support Wall" to show their support for Beck: "Freedom of speech applies to all speech, even those from the right," wrote Matt Elmore of Woodbridge, Va. "You are not alone, but like Gen. Washington, out in front of the troops," wrote Michael Lyon of Estero, Fla. "Never give up,” Leonor Godwin of Stephenville, Texas, wrote him. “They are trying to break you. You are our inspiration and our rock."
Hill also tells Newsmax he has received 5,000 e-mails from people who tell him they are canceling their Geico insurance policy because the company has joined the boycott against Beck, and about 6,500 e-mails from consumers who say they never will buy a Sargento product again.
"I don't want to do that," Hill tells Newsmax. "I think boycotts are stupid. But if they're going to join the boycott, boycotts work two ways. Earlier in the week, the companies were saying, 'Yeah we're dropping the ads.’ But as soon as people started getting in touch with them, they started denying they were dropping anything.'"
Other Beck supporters also are getting into the act. They include an upstate New York stay-at-home mom who became alarmed when she saw the orchestrated campaign to make one of the most independent voices in American media a pariah. Already a member of the 912 organization Beck initiated to recapture the nonpartisan spirit of unity the nation experienced after the 9/11 terror attacks, she created SupportGlennBeck.com.
The site includes a petition that states: “Through his radio and television show, he promotes God, family, and country — which resonates with a majority of Americans. “There are some people who have an ideological problem with Glenn Beck. These people will not be satisfied until voices such as Glenn’s are silenced. For the millions of us who share Glenn’s values, there is nothing more frightening than losing our forum,” the petition states.
The growing pro-Beck movement has also reached social networking sites. One example: Beck supporter Doug Edelman of St. Louis has established a new Facebook group, “Defend Glenn Beck Against Thug Inspired Boycott.” During its first week, more than 790 members joined the group, which includes a statement of support for Beck and lists contact information for companies that are said to be boycotting his show.
Exaggerated Boycotts
The anti-Beck activists claim that more than 20 advertisers have dropped the Beck program. Hill and others on the pro-Beck side dispute say Color of Change has greatly exaggerated the effect of its boycott. Many of the companies the organization lists now deny they have anything to do with the boycott. Newsmax contacted Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance, SC Johnson, and Radio Shack, all of which said they have not directed Fox News to pull their ads from the Glenn Beck Program, as Color of Change has stated. In fact, these companies’ representatives tell Newsmax that, as a matter of corporate policy, they never did advertise on the Glenn Beck Program and ask how they could boycott a program they never placed an ad on in the first place.
Another company, State Farm, tells Newsmax that its ad was never supposed to air on the Glenn Beck Program. State Farm has a longstanding company policy against advertising on any "political or opinion programming," its spokesman says. Having discovered the error, State Farm says, it will not be advertising on any cable talk show. And it is careful to emphasize it is not singling out Beck in this regard.
As State Farm’s response suggests, the net effect of the anti-Beck crusade probably will be fewer advertisers willing to advertise on the talk shows of any cable network. Consider, for example, the corporate response from Clorox. On Thursday, company executives wrote Hill stating: “After a comprehensive review of political talk shows across the spectrum, at this time we have made a decision not to advertise on political talk shows.”
Assuming the pro-Beck backlash continues, that probably means the activist campaign intended to hurt Beck will, ironically, damage Beck’s progressive competitors more than it hurts him.
Lost ads will impact smaller networks such as MSNBC far more than it will affect ratings juggernaut Fox News, industry sources say. Nearly 2.5 million viewers tuned in to Beck’s show in its 5 p.m. Eastern time slot last week, according to Mediabistro’s TV Newser. Beck’s ratings on Fox exceeded those of CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News combined. All of which calls into question whether advertiser boycotts work anyway.
“It’s funny because I think their calculation is that by going after advertisers they are going to affect his bottom line,” Schweizer says. “But this is a common misperception of liberals. Beck isn’t in this for the money. So even if they could succeed, they won’t silence him.”
Michael Harrison has seen plenty of media campaigns come and go as publisher of Talkers Magazine. “My guess,” he says, “is he will weather this storm.” “Beck expected to get hostile feedback, and a whole bunch of publicity, and he succeeded on both counts,” Harrison says. “People have the right to be offended and businesses have the right to spend their advertising dollars however they choose. Free speech guarantees the right of having an opinion without government censorship. It doesn’t guarantee that people won’t be angry and withhold their support. The free marketplace of ideas is not for the faint hearted!”
And for ratings giant Fox, Beck’s remarkable connection with viewers has made the free market a profitable one indeed. “The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network,” a Fox spokesman recently told Ad Age, “so there is no revenue lost.”
Below are companies listed on the DefendGlenn site as having joined the Color of Change boycott against Glenn Beck:
Ally Bank
President and CEO Mark B. Hales
(877) 247-2559
6985 Union Park Center
Midvale, Utah 84047
-------------------
Broadview Security (Brinks)
Robert B. Allen
(800) 445-0872
8880 Esters Blvd,
Irving, Texas 75063
-------------------
CVS Caremark Corp.
Thomas M. Ryan
(401) 765-1500
One CVS Drive
Woonsocket, R.I. 02895
------------------
Geico
Chairman and CEO Tony Nicely
(800) 861-8380
5260 Western Ave.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20815
-------------------
Healthy Choice Foods
A subsidiary of
ConAgra Foods Inc.
President and CEO Gary M. Rodkin
(402) 595-4000
1 ConAgra Drive
Omaha, Neb. 68102-5001
-------------------
Lawyers.com
A subsidiary of
LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
CEO Andrew Prozes
(800) 526-4902
121 Chanlon Road
New Providence, N.J. 07974
-------------------
Men's Wearhouse
Chairman and CEO George Zimmer
(281) 776-7200
6380 Rogerdale Road
Houston, Texas 77072
-------------------
Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
President and CEO Gregory Irace
(800) 981-2491
55 Corporate Drive
Bridgewater, N.J. 08807
-------------------
Sargento Foods Inc.
Chairman and CEO Louis Gentine
(800) 243-3737
One Persnickety Place
Plymouth, Wis. 53073
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Must Pass Urine Test for Welfare Check?
I think this is a good idea!
THE JOB - URINE TEST Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass – doing drugs, while I work. . . .
Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.
THE JOB - URINE TEST Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass – doing drugs, while I work. . . .
Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Harvard Professor Gates Demands Slavery Reparations
Freed Reed is out spoken on the hypocrisy of Prof. Gates on blacks in America and his stand on reparations for sins of the last century. Reed wonders what Prof. Gates uses for a rational to support his demands on non-black America?
Interesting how easily the modern liberal will acquire the philosophy of " pull the rope up, I'm aboard" to justify their status in 'accepted society'. And more interesting how they will do and say anything, even against their neighbors, to maintain that status.
Interesting discussions in 21st century America - keep the faith
How Many Slaves do You Own ?*
For those who aren't up to date, this is directed to the Harvard professor that got arrested by Cambridge Police.**
Fred Reed was a police reporter for one of the large Washington newspapers. He now writes a column which can be goggled ~ "Fred on Everything." *** **Fred published a weekly online column in which he got to say the things his editors would never, ever have let him write in the paper. His stuff is iconoclastic and various articles have probably offended everyone...regardless of political orientation.***So, with the warning that "This is definitely not politically correct," here comes Fred....*
Slavery Reparations
by Fred Reed!
On the Web I find that Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Afro-American Studies at Harvard, is demanding that whites pay reparations to blacks.**It's because of slavery, see. He is joined in this endeavor by a gaggle of other professional blacks. I guess he'll send me a bill, huh? I feel like saying, "Let me get this straight, Hank. I'm slow. Be patient. You want free money because of slavery, right? I don't blame you." I'd like free money too.**Tell you what. I believe in justice. I'll give you a million dollars for every slave I own, and another million for every year you were a slave. Fair enough? But tell me, how many slaves do you suppose I have?
In round numbers, I mean...say to the nearest dozen. And how long were you a slave? *** **Oh. In other words, I owe you reparations for something that I didn't do and didn't happen to you. That makes sense. Like lug nuts on a birthday cake. ** **
Personally, I think you owe me reparations for things you didn't do and never happened to me.***I've never been coated in Dutch chocolate and thrown from the Eiffel Tower . I'll bet you've never done it to anyone. I want reparations. Kind of silly, isn't it? *** **But if we're going to talk about reparations, that's a street that runs in two directions.
You want money from me for what some other whites did to some other blacks in another century?***How about you guys paying whites reparations for current expenses caused by blacks? Not long ago blacks burned down half of Los Angeles, a city in my country. Cities are expensive, Hank. Build one sometime and you'll see what I mean. Whites had to pay taxes to repair Los Angeles for you.**You can send me a check. *** ***
Now, yes, I know you burned LA because you didn't like the verdict in the trial of those police officers. Well, I didn't like the verdict in the Simpson trial. But I didn't burn my house and loot Korean grocers, or burn down a city.**Over the years blacks have burned a lot of American cities: Newark , Detroit , Watts , on and on. Now add in the fantastic cost over the years of welfare in all its forms, the cost of all of those police calls people had to make, for cells and jails and security systems in department **stores.**
I can't live in the capital city of my own country because of crime committed by blacks. Toss in the cultural cost of lowering standards in everything for the benefit of blacks.**See what I mean? *** **
Now, I'd view things differently if you said to me, "Fred, blacks can't get anywhere in a modern country without education. We know that. We need better schools, smarter teachers, harder courses, books with smaller pictures and bigger words.***Can you help us?" *** **I'd say, "Hallelujah! **Hoo-ahh! Not just yes, but hell yes. Let's sell an aircraft carrier and get these folks some real schools and get them into the economic main-stream."
I'd say it partly because it would be the right thing to do, and partly, because I'd like to add you guys to the tax base. The current custodial state is expensive. I'd just love for blacks to study and learn to compete and stop burning places. But is it going to happen? You may not believe it, but I, and most whites, don't like seeing blacks as miserable and screwed up as they are.**I spend a fair amount of time in the projects. Those places are ugly. It's no fun watching perfectly good kids turn into semi-literate dope dealers who barely speak English. It just plain ain't right.
But, Hank, what am I supposed to do about it? I can't do your children's homework. At some point, people have to do things for themselves, or they don't get done. Maybe it's time. I'll tell you what I see out in the world, Hank... I think blacks are too accustomed to getting anything they want by just demanding it. True, it has worked for over half a century.
Get a few hundred people in the street, implicitly threaten to loot and burn, holler about slavery, and sadly, the Great White Cash Spigot turns on. Thing is, whites don't much buy it any longer. Most recognize that what once was a civil-rights movement has become a shakedown game.
Few people still feel responsible for the failings and inadequacies of blacks. Political correctness keeps the lid on -- but everyone knows the score. Which scares me, Hank. On one hand, blacks hate whites and incline toward looting and burning. (The whites you hate are the ones who marched in the civil-rights movement. Ever think about that?)
On the other hand, whites quietly grow wearier and wearier of it. Not good, Hank. On the third hand (allow me three hands, for rhetorical convenience), blacks keep demanding things. As I write, you demand reparations for slavery. Blacks in Oklahoma (I think it was) want money for some ancient race riot. Other blacks reject the Declaration of Independence, blacks in New York hint broadly at burning and looting over a trial, yet more demand the elimination of the Confederate flag, and the federal equal opportunity apparatus, which means blacks, want to sue Silicon Valley for not hiring nonexistent black engineers. That's a lot of demanding for one month, Hank.
What happens if whites ever say, "No"? Now, how about you? You've got a cushy job up there at Harvard, and you can hoot and holler about what swine and bandits whites are. I guess it's lots of fun, and you get a salary for it to boot. But don't you think you might do blacks more good if you told them to complain less and study more? For example, if you want blacks to work in Silicon Gulch, the best approach might be to find some really smart black guys, and get them to study digital design ~ not Black Studies (as you teach). That's how everybody else does it. It works. Then blacks wouldn't feel left out, and racial tensions would decline.***Sound like a plan? *** *
Just out of curiosity, how many hours a week do professors of Afro-American Studies spend in the projects, encouraging poor black kids to study real life sho-nuf subjects? *
Sunday, August 23, 2009
ELCA Lutherans Forsake Scripture for Politics
I wonder just how far the church will fall before it decides that Jesus died on principle, not on politics.
Keep the faith - the battle rages for even our souls!
The Washington Times <http://www.washingtontimes.com/>
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lutheran conservatives reeling over defeat
Julia Duin <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/julia-duin/> (Contact http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/julia-duin/contact)
MINNEAPOLIS Conservatives at the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's churchwide assembly here were still reeling Thursday from losing -- by one vote -- their battle to defeat a new social statement that gives validity to same-sex relationships.
As they strategized, other Lutherans attending the denomination's biennial meeting overwhelmingly voted 958-51 Thursday to enter into full communion with the 7.9-million-member United Methodist Church, joining the forces of two of America's largest mainline Protestant denominations.
That ecumenical triumph did not comfort the Rev. Paull Spring, chairman of the group Lutheran Coalition for Reform (CORE), who called the results of Wednesday's social statement vote "distressing, anguishing and appalling." "We were hoping we'd carry the day," he said. "There's no real consensus in this church. It's a shock the church would make a decision like this on the basis of one vote."
Wednesday's vote of 676 "yes" votes to 338 "no" votes was the exact total needed to pass a new social statement that redefines the denomination's position on some sexual issues including homosexuality. Thirty-one other registered members did not vote, some of whom apparently left for dinner, thinking the key vote would be delayed until Thursday."It was very distressing, disappointing and discouraging," said Ryan Schwarz, a member of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer in McLean, Va. "The social statement was so devoid of Lutheran theology and the teaching of Scripture."
The church is called to be faithful to Scripture even when it's achingly hard. We have people in CORE who are gay. We wish for their sake the church could change its teaching on this matter but God hasn't given us this authority." Phil Soucy, a spokesman for the gay caucus Lutherans Concerned, said it was quite a feat to get as many as two-thirds of the Lutheran body to approve the statement. "They pushed to make it a two-thirds vote," he said of conservatives, "and now they're complaining it only passed by one vote. This was so much more difficult to get than a simple majority. We have a consensus of a two-thirds vote."
Conservatives admitted Thursday things are looking bleak for an upcoming battle Friday to defeat a series of proposals leading toward the acceptance of openly gay clergy. Their chief battle will lie in persuading like-minded churches not to bolt the denomination."Our hope and prayer is those ELCA congregations who uphold the authority of God's Word over all matters of faith and life won't do anything rash," said Mark Chavez, executive director of CORE, "but to work together to do the things the ELCA should be doing in terms of ecumenical relationships and becoming a multicultural church."
They are asking concerned Lutherans to attend CORE's annual meeting Sept. 25-26 at Christ the Savior Lutheran Church in Fishers, Ind., to discern what to do next. The 4.7-million-member ELCA was more united in its vote on the Methodists.
Lutherans and Methodists started a formal dialogue in 1977, then have hammered out agreements on baptism, Holy Communion, missions, bishops and other theological tenets. In 2005, the ELCA approved - along with the United Methodist Bishops Council - an interim Eucharist sharing between the two churches. In April 2008, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church voted for full communion with the ELCA by an 864-19 vote.
United Methodist Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, told the assembly they were doing a "deeply evangelistic work." He continued, "I am grateful we have come to this point. It will be a great day should you vote to choose this full communion."
Numerous ELCA bishops lined up at the microphones to urge voting members to approve the full communion agreement. After the lopsided vote, Presiding ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson said, "We rejoice in what the Spirit has in store for us."The United Methodist Church is the largest and the sixth Christian body (after the Moravians, Episcopalians, the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA) with which the ELCA has established full communion. Full communion means the churches will work for visible unity in Jesus Christ, recognize each other's ministries, work together on ministry initiatives, and sometimes allow the interchangeability of ordained clergy.
Keep the faith - the battle rages for even our souls!
The Washington Times <http://www.washingtontimes.com/>
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lutheran conservatives reeling over defeat
Julia Duin <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/julia-duin/> (Contact http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/julia-duin/contact)
MINNEAPOLIS Conservatives at the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's churchwide assembly here were still reeling Thursday from losing -- by one vote -- their battle to defeat a new social statement that gives validity to same-sex relationships.
As they strategized, other Lutherans attending the denomination's biennial meeting overwhelmingly voted 958-51 Thursday to enter into full communion with the 7.9-million-member United Methodist Church, joining the forces of two of America's largest mainline Protestant denominations.
That ecumenical triumph did not comfort the Rev. Paull Spring, chairman of the group Lutheran Coalition for Reform (CORE), who called the results of Wednesday's social statement vote "distressing, anguishing and appalling." "We were hoping we'd carry the day," he said. "There's no real consensus in this church. It's a shock the church would make a decision like this on the basis of one vote."
Wednesday's vote of 676 "yes" votes to 338 "no" votes was the exact total needed to pass a new social statement that redefines the denomination's position on some sexual issues including homosexuality. Thirty-one other registered members did not vote, some of whom apparently left for dinner, thinking the key vote would be delayed until Thursday."It was very distressing, disappointing and discouraging," said Ryan Schwarz, a member of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer in McLean, Va. "The social statement was so devoid of Lutheran theology and the teaching of Scripture."
The church is called to be faithful to Scripture even when it's achingly hard. We have people in CORE who are gay. We wish for their sake the church could change its teaching on this matter but God hasn't given us this authority." Phil Soucy, a spokesman for the gay caucus Lutherans Concerned, said it was quite a feat to get as many as two-thirds of the Lutheran body to approve the statement. "They pushed to make it a two-thirds vote," he said of conservatives, "and now they're complaining it only passed by one vote. This was so much more difficult to get than a simple majority. We have a consensus of a two-thirds vote."
Conservatives admitted Thursday things are looking bleak for an upcoming battle Friday to defeat a series of proposals leading toward the acceptance of openly gay clergy. Their chief battle will lie in persuading like-minded churches not to bolt the denomination."Our hope and prayer is those ELCA congregations who uphold the authority of God's Word over all matters of faith and life won't do anything rash," said Mark Chavez, executive director of CORE, "but to work together to do the things the ELCA should be doing in terms of ecumenical relationships and becoming a multicultural church."
They are asking concerned Lutherans to attend CORE's annual meeting Sept. 25-26 at Christ the Savior Lutheran Church in Fishers, Ind., to discern what to do next. The 4.7-million-member ELCA was more united in its vote on the Methodists.
Lutherans and Methodists started a formal dialogue in 1977, then have hammered out agreements on baptism, Holy Communion, missions, bishops and other theological tenets. In 2005, the ELCA approved - along with the United Methodist Bishops Council - an interim Eucharist sharing between the two churches. In April 2008, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church voted for full communion with the ELCA by an 864-19 vote.
United Methodist Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, told the assembly they were doing a "deeply evangelistic work." He continued, "I am grateful we have come to this point. It will be a great day should you vote to choose this full communion."
Numerous ELCA bishops lined up at the microphones to urge voting members to approve the full communion agreement. After the lopsided vote, Presiding ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson said, "We rejoice in what the Spirit has in store for us."The United Methodist Church is the largest and the sixth Christian body (after the Moravians, Episcopalians, the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA) with which the ELCA has established full communion. Full communion means the churches will work for visible unity in Jesus Christ, recognize each other's ministries, work together on ministry initiatives, and sometimes allow the interchangeability of ordained clergy.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Cash For Codgers : Turn in Old Person For Cash
I find this to be the lowest and, really, incomprehensible on the part of liberal Democrats. They will apparently stop at nothing to gain power and solidify their place in history.
World history only, of course, as American history has never had such people before and hopefully never again.
This may be a little "tongue in cheek" but still I believe they would do it if they thought they could get away with it. I know they thought this way after January 20th, but now, as things are falling apart, it would be more difficult.
Keep the faith - enjoy the weekend -
CASH FOR CODGERS!
Democrats, realizing the success of the President's "Cash For Clunkers" rebate program, have revamped a major portion of their National Health Care Plan. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named....
"CASH FOR CODGERS" and it works like this... Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person. The amount the government allocates will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts. Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, and any member of the Republican Party.
Smaller bonuses will be given for codgers who consume beef, soda, fried foods, potato chips, lattes, whole milk, dairy products, bacon, Brussels sprouts, or Girl Scout Cookies. All codgers will be rendered totally useless via toxic injection. This will insure that they are not secretly resold or their body parts harvested to keep other codgers in repair.
Remember you heard it here first...
World history only, of course, as American history has never had such people before and hopefully never again.
This may be a little "tongue in cheek" but still I believe they would do it if they thought they could get away with it. I know they thought this way after January 20th, but now, as things are falling apart, it would be more difficult.
Keep the faith - enjoy the weekend -
CASH FOR CODGERS!
Democrats, realizing the success of the President's "Cash For Clunkers" rebate program, have revamped a major portion of their National Health Care Plan. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named....
"CASH FOR CODGERS" and it works like this... Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person. The amount the government allocates will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts. Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, and any member of the Republican Party.
Smaller bonuses will be given for codgers who consume beef, soda, fried foods, potato chips, lattes, whole milk, dairy products, bacon, Brussels sprouts, or Girl Scout Cookies. All codgers will be rendered totally useless via toxic injection. This will insure that they are not secretly resold or their body parts harvested to keep other codgers in repair.
Remember you heard it here first...
Friday, August 21, 2009
Weatherization Plan / National Health Care Plan : Obama Disasters
Little wonder we all know how a national heath care program will work given how all other government programs work. They are mostly total failures and cost us, the tax payers, billions of dollars in waste and corruption. It has always been this way and yet many of us continue to believe the next one will be different.
What more do we need to know to say no to national health care?
THE GANG THAT CAN'T INSULATE STRAIGHT
By JACOB GERSHMAN/August 17, 2009/ – NY Post
WONDERING whether the Obama administration knows what it's doing as it seeks to remake American health care? Consider a far smaller idea that the White House pushed as a no-brainer earlier this year: The Weatherization Assistance Program is proving a perfect example of noble intentions gone awry.
A child of the 1970s fuel crisis, WAP was designed to help poor Americans reduce their home energy consumption. As part of the stimulus bill, Obama and Congress are pouring $5 billion into the program -- a nearly 10-fold increase in funding.
It was sold as a vehicle for job creation, an investment in the environment and a means for low-income Americans to lower their heating costs. But it's a failure on every count. Here's how it works: If you're eligible, the government will pay to weatherstrip your doors, insulate your walls and ceilings, fix your windows and, in some cases, buy you a new refrigerator and heating system -- all for free. You just have to sign up with a local community-action group, which will send over workers to do the repairs. It's proving a rip-off -- the government is spending a fortune for each household that benefits.
A quarter of the money is squandered on a vast bureaucracy of regulatory field staff, administrators and training. Also inflating the costs are prevailing-wage mandates and provisions that encourage states to spend the most money on the fewest homes.With $400 million, New York state intends to repair 45,000 units, or /nearly $9,000/ a home.
A typical private contractor will charge $1,000 to knock off 10 percent to 15 percent off your heating bill. The government's higher costs are supposedly justified by a promise of energy savings of around 23 percent. But that turns out to be a completely imaginary number.When I asked state officials where they got their figures, they told me they came from the feds. Then the US Department of Energy told me that the savings estimates came from a 2005 evaluation conducted by the department's research institute.That study, I learned, relied on data supplied by . . . the states, including New York.
Coming full circle, I asked New York officials where they got the numbers used in the national study. Turns out they came from a 1998 report by an weatherization-advocacy group, working in concert with the same nonprofits that administer the program money. The job estimates are also dubious.
Sen. Charles Schumer, using Department of Energy figures, claimed the $5 billion would generate 375,000 jobs. The White House put it at around 60,000. The reality is probably much lower. A director at one of the largest nonprofit agencies administering the program in New York told me the group was planning to hire two or three people. Contractors, who fear the wage regulations will triple their labor costs, say they aren't sure the stimulus money will support /any/ new jobs."There's no money to be made in it. It's just something to keep us busy," says Hugo Salinas of New York Energy Conservation Co., one of the state's largest weatherizing contractors.
Smaller contractors aren't even bothering. "It's not worth it for me. I won't do it. It's a waste of my time," says Gary Grecco, at EnergyPro Insulation of Staten Island. Here's another problem. The administration claims the program "provides a critical service for low-income families, who are often forced to choose between paying their energy bills and buying food or paying for other basic needs, a critical service for low-income families."Sorry: Those low-income families are already eligible for aid that wipes out most of their heating expenses.
New York last winter spent $400 million subsidizing the utility bills of low-income households, which got benefits as large as $2,500 each. Which explains why the feds needed "community-action groups" to round up applicants. Oh, and the program didn't manage to provide much stimulus. The weatherizing plan is so over-regulated that the Obama team hasn't even gotten it running: Labor officials are holding up the money until they determine the prevailing wage for a "weatherization worker.
"It's not hard to come up with a better way to make homes more fuel-efficient and help out the "green" industry. You could, for example, build upon existing tax credit and rebate policies. But the Obama administration /believed/ in the program.
An ounce of skepticism would have raised serious doubts. Instead, we're left with another case of good intentions falling prey to ideology and certainty.
Health reform, anyone?/jacob.gershman@gmail.com/
What more do we need to know to say no to national health care?
THE GANG THAT CAN'T INSULATE STRAIGHT
By JACOB GERSHMAN/August 17, 2009/ – NY Post
WONDERING whether the Obama administration knows what it's doing as it seeks to remake American health care? Consider a far smaller idea that the White House pushed as a no-brainer earlier this year: The Weatherization Assistance Program is proving a perfect example of noble intentions gone awry.
A child of the 1970s fuel crisis, WAP was designed to help poor Americans reduce their home energy consumption. As part of the stimulus bill, Obama and Congress are pouring $5 billion into the program -- a nearly 10-fold increase in funding.
It was sold as a vehicle for job creation, an investment in the environment and a means for low-income Americans to lower their heating costs. But it's a failure on every count. Here's how it works: If you're eligible, the government will pay to weatherstrip your doors, insulate your walls and ceilings, fix your windows and, in some cases, buy you a new refrigerator and heating system -- all for free. You just have to sign up with a local community-action group, which will send over workers to do the repairs. It's proving a rip-off -- the government is spending a fortune for each household that benefits.
A quarter of the money is squandered on a vast bureaucracy of regulatory field staff, administrators and training. Also inflating the costs are prevailing-wage mandates and provisions that encourage states to spend the most money on the fewest homes.With $400 million, New York state intends to repair 45,000 units, or /nearly $9,000/ a home.
A typical private contractor will charge $1,000 to knock off 10 percent to 15 percent off your heating bill. The government's higher costs are supposedly justified by a promise of energy savings of around 23 percent. But that turns out to be a completely imaginary number.When I asked state officials where they got their figures, they told me they came from the feds. Then the US Department of Energy told me that the savings estimates came from a 2005 evaluation conducted by the department's research institute.That study, I learned, relied on data supplied by . . . the states, including New York.
Coming full circle, I asked New York officials where they got the numbers used in the national study. Turns out they came from a 1998 report by an weatherization-advocacy group, working in concert with the same nonprofits that administer the program money. The job estimates are also dubious.
Sen. Charles Schumer, using Department of Energy figures, claimed the $5 billion would generate 375,000 jobs. The White House put it at around 60,000. The reality is probably much lower. A director at one of the largest nonprofit agencies administering the program in New York told me the group was planning to hire two or three people. Contractors, who fear the wage regulations will triple their labor costs, say they aren't sure the stimulus money will support /any/ new jobs."There's no money to be made in it. It's just something to keep us busy," says Hugo Salinas of New York Energy Conservation Co., one of the state's largest weatherizing contractors.
Smaller contractors aren't even bothering. "It's not worth it for me. I won't do it. It's a waste of my time," says Gary Grecco, at EnergyPro Insulation of Staten Island. Here's another problem. The administration claims the program "provides a critical service for low-income families, who are often forced to choose between paying their energy bills and buying food or paying for other basic needs, a critical service for low-income families."Sorry: Those low-income families are already eligible for aid that wipes out most of their heating expenses.
New York last winter spent $400 million subsidizing the utility bills of low-income households, which got benefits as large as $2,500 each. Which explains why the feds needed "community-action groups" to round up applicants. Oh, and the program didn't manage to provide much stimulus. The weatherizing plan is so over-regulated that the Obama team hasn't even gotten it running: Labor officials are holding up the money until they determine the prevailing wage for a "weatherization worker.
"It's not hard to come up with a better way to make homes more fuel-efficient and help out the "green" industry. You could, for example, build upon existing tax credit and rebate policies. But the Obama administration /believed/ in the program.
An ounce of skepticism would have raised serious doubts. Instead, we're left with another case of good intentions falling prey to ideology and certainty.
Health reform, anyone?/jacob.gershman@gmail.com/
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Obama Slashes Military Spending - Supports "Civil Defense Corp"
Again, the Heritage Foundation has pounded the nail in tight with what the Obama administration is doing to destroy the military. It never was his, Obama, intention to support the military as a defense against people and nations that what to crush our will to defend ourselves.
It is this cut back in support of the military that Obama will use as an excuse to develop his 'Civil Defense Corp', funded through organization like ACORN and other "community organization" groups. Obama has allocated billions for this and other purposes to bring the population under his control. He will use the corp American citizens as the Russians used their military against Hungary.
It is clear to me that Obama does not like this country the way it is and he will use any tool or anyone to "change" it to what he thinks is fair. Fair, of course, means total domination of all aspects of American life by Marxist socialists with himself as supreme leader for life. Look out 22nd amendment.
Keep the faith - the people are see through the smoke screen of lies and misinformation.
More soldiers, less equipment
President Obama has agreed to temporarily expand the United States Army by 22,000 troops -- an important move to help ease the burden on soldiers serving multiple tours of duty overseas. But to pay for this increase, expected to cost about $1.5 billion, the President will redirect funds from important programs to purchase new equipment and modernize the military.
"It's terrible policy to scrimp on acquisition in order to pay people," writes Mackenzie Eaglen, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation. Why add more men and women in uniform, she asks, "if we're not going to give them the tools they need to fight and win?"
"Instead of discussing what the military can do without, sacrifices often paid for with life and limb," she continues, "the real debate should focus on how to best pay America's military and ensure that new enlistees retain the military superiority possessed by today's forces."
The Heritage Foundation has long advocated committing sufficient funds to national security.
Spending four percent of GDP on defense, Heritage experts argue, would provide sufficient resources to protect the United States from current threats and prepare our military to meet tomorrow's dangers.
» Join over 100,000 concerned Americans and sign our petition to protect defense spending
But the Obama administration would further slash defense funding in coming years. His "budget blueprint drastically reduces defense spending to just three percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2019, far below the current spending levels of approximately four percent," Eaglen explained in an April analysis.
This means that needed investment in critical tools like the F-22 and missile defense -- which the President called "lower-priority" programs -- would fall by the wayside.
Strengthening the military by bringing on additional troops is an important step, but it is not enough. Such an expansion needs to be coupled with increased funds to equip all servicemen and women with the tools to defend this country.
"The military deserves more than enough to barely get by," argues Eaglen. "Congress will regret any decision to continue cutting equipment at the expense of people."
It is this cut back in support of the military that Obama will use as an excuse to develop his 'Civil Defense Corp', funded through organization like ACORN and other "community organization" groups. Obama has allocated billions for this and other purposes to bring the population under his control. He will use the corp American citizens as the Russians used their military against Hungary.
It is clear to me that Obama does not like this country the way it is and he will use any tool or anyone to "change" it to what he thinks is fair. Fair, of course, means total domination of all aspects of American life by Marxist socialists with himself as supreme leader for life. Look out 22nd amendment.
Keep the faith - the people are see through the smoke screen of lies and misinformation.
More soldiers, less equipment
President Obama has agreed to temporarily expand the United States Army by 22,000 troops -- an important move to help ease the burden on soldiers serving multiple tours of duty overseas. But to pay for this increase, expected to cost about $1.5 billion, the President will redirect funds from important programs to purchase new equipment and modernize the military.
"It's terrible policy to scrimp on acquisition in order to pay people," writes Mackenzie Eaglen, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation. Why add more men and women in uniform, she asks, "if we're not going to give them the tools they need to fight and win?"
"Instead of discussing what the military can do without, sacrifices often paid for with life and limb," she continues, "the real debate should focus on how to best pay America's military and ensure that new enlistees retain the military superiority possessed by today's forces."
The Heritage Foundation has long advocated committing sufficient funds to national security.
Spending four percent of GDP on defense, Heritage experts argue, would provide sufficient resources to protect the United States from current threats and prepare our military to meet tomorrow's dangers.
» Join over 100,000 concerned Americans and sign our petition to protect defense spending
But the Obama administration would further slash defense funding in coming years. His "budget blueprint drastically reduces defense spending to just three percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2019, far below the current spending levels of approximately four percent," Eaglen explained in an April analysis.
This means that needed investment in critical tools like the F-22 and missile defense -- which the President called "lower-priority" programs -- would fall by the wayside.
Strengthening the military by bringing on additional troops is an important step, but it is not enough. Such an expansion needs to be coupled with increased funds to equip all servicemen and women with the tools to defend this country.
"The military deserves more than enough to barely get by," argues Eaglen. "Congress will regret any decision to continue cutting equipment at the expense of people."
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
March On Washington September 12 !!!
This is what I have been waiting for and now we all have the chance to tell congress and the president just what we think!!
Make plans to go!
Armey: We'll March on Washington Against Obamacare
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:15 PM
By: Rick Pedraza
Armey: “The public at large is dealing with the hostile takeover of the ‘heartfelt sector’ of the economy –– my personal healthcare. They [the government] want to take it over and they want to run it, and that is scary to the public at large.” (Getty Images)
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is organizing a march on Washington against the Obama administration’s healthcare plan that he hopes will finally finish off the Democratic push for socialized medicine.
The march, organized by Armey’s political group FreedomWorks, is scheduled for Sept. 12 and is already generating hundreds of thousands of responses, the Texas Republican tells Newsmax.TV. The group isn’t providing transportation, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem.
See Video: Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey talks about the movement to defeat Obamacare - Click Here Now
“We had a guy the other day from Indiana that said, ‘I want to get there.’ When we explained that we don’t bus people into these things, he said, ‘No, a bunch of us are getting together and renting our own bus. We’re all coming,’” Armey told Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella.
“The fact is they want their voices to be heard and they are looking at a venue in which they can express it.”
Armey also told Newsmax that: the agenda of Obama and the liberal leadership of Congress offers the GOP ample opportunity to take back control of the House and build ranks in the Senate in 2010. Because lawmakers continually fear the charge of doing nothing, they can easily be stampeded by mass movements into crafting bad laws that can take years to fix.
the Democrat Party continually underestimates the public’s essential desire to be free to run their own healthcare.
The resistance to ObamaCare is similar to that of HillaryCare, in which voters revolted against Hillary Clinton’s attempt at healthcare reform in 1993-94.
The Democratic playbook is based very much on the teachings of former Obama mentor and radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who stressed that a movement must first create the impression of a crisis, then show the nation how big government and only big government alone has the solution to that crisis.
“The public at large is dealing with the same mass of hostile takeover of the ‘heartfelt sector’ of the economy –– my personal healthcare, Armey said. “They [the government] want to take it over and they want to run it, and that is scary to the public at large.”
Armey, one of the architects of the “Republican Revolution” and “The Contract with America,” which put the GOP in control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, tells Newsmax that FreedomWorks has been an active player in the resistance to the Democrats healthcare overhaul.
“We are very active,” Armey says. “We put up our own Web site that encourages people by way of letting them know where the town halls will be. Sometimes members of Congress aren’t very effective at communicating to the public at large that they are having a Town Hall meeting. They communicate to all their best personal friends, advisers and supporters that they are going to get together, and then they bill it as a Town Hall meeting when it is too late for others to get in.”
Armey, a former U.S. Representative from Texas's 26th congressional district (1985–2003), points to an incident in Florida where “by the time the public at large got there, the room was already filled up full of mostly labor people.”
Armey says FreedomWorks lets constituents know where Town Halls will be held and encourages them how to approach a member of Congress, how to conduct themselves, and to turn out.
Armey says that HillaryCare, in which voters revolted against Hillary Clinton’s attempt at healthcare reform in 1993-94, was in large part responsible for the Republican Revolution that swept the GOP into control of Congress.
“I think it’s pretty much the same thing,” Armey explains. I remember George Miller, who is now one of the leaders in Nancy Pelosi’s cabinet, growling at me in 1994 that the public is going to get [healthcare reform] whether they want it or not! That’s an underestimation of the will of the public that [the Democrats] continue to make, so, again, what they have is a new plan to take over the healthcare sector of the economy, and the public is reacting just as they did in 1994.”
Armey says Miller’s arrogance in that statement is absolutely one of the most stunning moments he ever had.
“The fact that a member of Congress would say the American people are going to get it whether they want it or not because we’ve been waiting 40 years to do this, I just sat there and looked at him and said, ‘Now wait a minute. Is this about us or is it about the nation and the nation’s people? Are we here to take care of what we’ve wanted for the last 40 years, or are we hear to take care of our constituents?’”
Armey calls the push for healthcare reform a harsh reflection of the arrogance of Congress –– what you might call “the audacity of conceit” among members of Congress. He predicts a grassroots backlash against Obama’s hostile government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
“It’s already there,” Armey tells Newsmax. “These people are showing up at the Town Hall meetings. If you go to the FreedomWorks Web site you’ll see we are organizing a march on Washington on Sept. 12, and we are amazed at the number of people that want to sign up.”
The people have no choice but to raise their voice, Armey said, because Congress in recent years has been “stampeded” into making bad policy.
“Congress in recent years has shown itself to be perfectly capable of being stampeded like a bunch of lemmings off a cliff into making the wrong policy decisions because of their fear of being seen as the guy that did nothing,” Armey says. “That’s how we got things like TARP, the auto bailout and these massive takeovers and spending programs.”
Armey says that in September or October, in their frustration, the Obama administration ––along with its “auxiliary organizations in the press” –– will “create the illusion that we’ve got a flying flu outbreak that is greater and more dangerous than the bubonic plague, and they’ll stampede these guys into the votes.”
Armey finds Rahm Emmanuel’s “never let a good crisis go to waste” remark a joke.
“That cracked me up. One of the things about liberals that amuses me is those kind of moments where they slip and tell the truth. Every now and then when they do that, they give you a moment to remember, and Rahm Emmanuel gave us one there. I’m sure he was severely scolded by all his associates and colleagues, and reminded, ‘Rahm, in our philosophical framework, we don’t tell truths. That’s against the law.’”
Armey believes that given the agenda of Obama and the liberal leadership of Congress, Republicans stand a good chance at taking back control of the House and at diminishing their disadvantage in the Senate in 2010.
“I think there’s a very big chance,” he says. “All the electoral cards are stacked against [the Democrats] in 2010. It’s a crucial year for liberty in my estimation because, as you know, in the year 2010 when they conduct the census, you’re going to have the most crooked census in the history of the nation.
“I’m laughing at these guys. They are going to say, ‘We’re going to use a method called sampling, and they way that works is we put all the congressional district maps on a table and we take a look at the different maps and how we’d like them to be and who we’d like to be in the different districts. Then we’ll decide what the populations will be. And they send ACORN out to do the canvassing.
“I don’t know what this ACORN outfit is, but I’ve got to tell you, they [have their hands] in everything that comes through Congress these days, and there’s money for ACORN in it. There’s money for ACORN in this healthcare bill. I don’t get it. Saul Alinsky must be a genius –– he made doctors out of all these social activists.”
See Video: Fomer House Majority Leader Dick Armey talks about the movement to defeat Obamacare - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Make plans to go!
Armey: We'll March on Washington Against Obamacare
Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:15 PM
By: Rick Pedraza
Armey: “The public at large is dealing with the hostile takeover of the ‘heartfelt sector’ of the economy –– my personal healthcare. They [the government] want to take it over and they want to run it, and that is scary to the public at large.” (Getty Images)
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is organizing a march on Washington against the Obama administration’s healthcare plan that he hopes will finally finish off the Democratic push for socialized medicine.
The march, organized by Armey’s political group FreedomWorks, is scheduled for Sept. 12 and is already generating hundreds of thousands of responses, the Texas Republican tells Newsmax.TV. The group isn’t providing transportation, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem.
See Video: Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey talks about the movement to defeat Obamacare - Click Here Now
“We had a guy the other day from Indiana that said, ‘I want to get there.’ When we explained that we don’t bus people into these things, he said, ‘No, a bunch of us are getting together and renting our own bus. We’re all coming,’” Armey told Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella.
“The fact is they want their voices to be heard and they are looking at a venue in which they can express it.”
Armey also told Newsmax that: the agenda of Obama and the liberal leadership of Congress offers the GOP ample opportunity to take back control of the House and build ranks in the Senate in 2010. Because lawmakers continually fear the charge of doing nothing, they can easily be stampeded by mass movements into crafting bad laws that can take years to fix.
the Democrat Party continually underestimates the public’s essential desire to be free to run their own healthcare.
The resistance to ObamaCare is similar to that of HillaryCare, in which voters revolted against Hillary Clinton’s attempt at healthcare reform in 1993-94.
The Democratic playbook is based very much on the teachings of former Obama mentor and radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who stressed that a movement must first create the impression of a crisis, then show the nation how big government and only big government alone has the solution to that crisis.
“The public at large is dealing with the same mass of hostile takeover of the ‘heartfelt sector’ of the economy –– my personal healthcare, Armey said. “They [the government] want to take it over and they want to run it, and that is scary to the public at large.”
Armey, one of the architects of the “Republican Revolution” and “The Contract with America,” which put the GOP in control of Congress for the first time in 40 years, tells Newsmax that FreedomWorks has been an active player in the resistance to the Democrats healthcare overhaul.
“We are very active,” Armey says. “We put up our own Web site that encourages people by way of letting them know where the town halls will be. Sometimes members of Congress aren’t very effective at communicating to the public at large that they are having a Town Hall meeting. They communicate to all their best personal friends, advisers and supporters that they are going to get together, and then they bill it as a Town Hall meeting when it is too late for others to get in.”
Armey, a former U.S. Representative from Texas's 26th congressional district (1985–2003), points to an incident in Florida where “by the time the public at large got there, the room was already filled up full of mostly labor people.”
Armey says FreedomWorks lets constituents know where Town Halls will be held and encourages them how to approach a member of Congress, how to conduct themselves, and to turn out.
Armey says that HillaryCare, in which voters revolted against Hillary Clinton’s attempt at healthcare reform in 1993-94, was in large part responsible for the Republican Revolution that swept the GOP into control of Congress.
“I think it’s pretty much the same thing,” Armey explains. I remember George Miller, who is now one of the leaders in Nancy Pelosi’s cabinet, growling at me in 1994 that the public is going to get [healthcare reform] whether they want it or not! That’s an underestimation of the will of the public that [the Democrats] continue to make, so, again, what they have is a new plan to take over the healthcare sector of the economy, and the public is reacting just as they did in 1994.”
Armey says Miller’s arrogance in that statement is absolutely one of the most stunning moments he ever had.
“The fact that a member of Congress would say the American people are going to get it whether they want it or not because we’ve been waiting 40 years to do this, I just sat there and looked at him and said, ‘Now wait a minute. Is this about us or is it about the nation and the nation’s people? Are we here to take care of what we’ve wanted for the last 40 years, or are we hear to take care of our constituents?’”
Armey calls the push for healthcare reform a harsh reflection of the arrogance of Congress –– what you might call “the audacity of conceit” among members of Congress. He predicts a grassroots backlash against Obama’s hostile government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
“It’s already there,” Armey tells Newsmax. “These people are showing up at the Town Hall meetings. If you go to the FreedomWorks Web site you’ll see we are organizing a march on Washington on Sept. 12, and we are amazed at the number of people that want to sign up.”
The people have no choice but to raise their voice, Armey said, because Congress in recent years has been “stampeded” into making bad policy.
“Congress in recent years has shown itself to be perfectly capable of being stampeded like a bunch of lemmings off a cliff into making the wrong policy decisions because of their fear of being seen as the guy that did nothing,” Armey says. “That’s how we got things like TARP, the auto bailout and these massive takeovers and spending programs.”
Armey says that in September or October, in their frustration, the Obama administration ––along with its “auxiliary organizations in the press” –– will “create the illusion that we’ve got a flying flu outbreak that is greater and more dangerous than the bubonic plague, and they’ll stampede these guys into the votes.”
Armey finds Rahm Emmanuel’s “never let a good crisis go to waste” remark a joke.
“That cracked me up. One of the things about liberals that amuses me is those kind of moments where they slip and tell the truth. Every now and then when they do that, they give you a moment to remember, and Rahm Emmanuel gave us one there. I’m sure he was severely scolded by all his associates and colleagues, and reminded, ‘Rahm, in our philosophical framework, we don’t tell truths. That’s against the law.’”
Armey believes that given the agenda of Obama and the liberal leadership of Congress, Republicans stand a good chance at taking back control of the House and at diminishing their disadvantage in the Senate in 2010.
“I think there’s a very big chance,” he says. “All the electoral cards are stacked against [the Democrats] in 2010. It’s a crucial year for liberty in my estimation because, as you know, in the year 2010 when they conduct the census, you’re going to have the most crooked census in the history of the nation.
“I’m laughing at these guys. They are going to say, ‘We’re going to use a method called sampling, and they way that works is we put all the congressional district maps on a table and we take a look at the different maps and how we’d like them to be and who we’d like to be in the different districts. Then we’ll decide what the populations will be. And they send ACORN out to do the canvassing.
“I don’t know what this ACORN outfit is, but I’ve got to tell you, they [have their hands] in everything that comes through Congress these days, and there’s money for ACORN in it. There’s money for ACORN in this healthcare bill. I don’t get it. Saul Alinsky must be a genius –– he made doctors out of all these social activists.”
See Video: Fomer House Majority Leader Dick Armey talks about the movement to defeat Obamacare - Click Here Now
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, August 17, 2009
ObamaCare Forces 113 million From Private Insurance
The Heritage Foundation puts the finger on just one of many problems that are associated with the TRILLION dollar health care bill #3200 - forcing 113 million people out of there insurance into the night mare that is the "public option".
Yeah, I know, Obama says he will take the 'public option' out of the bill now but I think that is just a ruse to get people to take their eye off the ball, that is, to keep the pressure up to cancel the entire bill and start over with in put from grass roots. But this is something that Obama won't do.
This is his idea for controlling the general public for generations to come, forcing all Americas into a health care night mare that has played out as a disaster in Europe and Canada.
Keep the faith - hit the ground running to the Town Hall meetings
August 13, 2009
By Amanda Reinecker
The Left fights back on Obamacare
Across the nation, Americans have turned out at town-hall meetings with their Congressmen to question the wisdom of the Left's health care plan. In response, some liberals are vocally attacking Obamacare's critics.
» Read Heritage's Top 10 Reasons Why Obamacare is Wrong for America
"Upset citizens on the Right have turned out in incredible numbers," writes Heritage fellow Ernest Istook. "It has put the Left on the defensive and in counter-attack mode."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have called Obamacare opponents "un-American." They charge that those who question the government takeover of medicine are "orchestrating outrage" by using "scare-tactics" and spreading "disinformation" about the President's plan. And White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina vowed to "punch back twice as hard" and retaliate against dissenters.
The Left is now working to sanitize the town halls and prevent opponents from speaking out. One Big Labor-backed group is urging its members to overwhelm Obamacare critics with sheer numbers, Istook writes, while Congressmen are trying to duck the hard questions.
"Lost in the fight over the town-hall meetings," Heritage health policy expert Nina Owcharenko writes, "are the actual details of these bills."
» You can keep up with the facts at Heritage's FixHealthCarePolicy.com
Conservatives have hardly been able to get a word in edgewise in Congress, either. Owcharenko notes that liberals in Congress have often rejected even generous concessions and common-sense amendments offered by conservatives. One change that may have some life, however, is an amendment requiring members of Congress to forgo their lush plans and opt into the government plan.
But even if conservatives manage to tweak the plan around the edges, the overall proposal is still a terrible idea, writes Heritage economist Alison Fraser. "There are lots of bad ideas on the table in the health-reform debate."
But instead of listening to the opposition, the Left continues to push a $1 trillion government takeover of health care that, according to a study by the prestigious Lewin Group, will push 83 million people out of private-sector insurance, force 88 million out of their current, employer-provided insurance and dump 113 million into the "public option" health insurance plan.
Yeah, I know, Obama says he will take the 'public option' out of the bill now but I think that is just a ruse to get people to take their eye off the ball, that is, to keep the pressure up to cancel the entire bill and start over with in put from grass roots. But this is something that Obama won't do.
This is his idea for controlling the general public for generations to come, forcing all Americas into a health care night mare that has played out as a disaster in Europe and Canada.
Keep the faith - hit the ground running to the Town Hall meetings
August 13, 2009
By Amanda Reinecker
The Left fights back on Obamacare
Across the nation, Americans have turned out at town-hall meetings with their Congressmen to question the wisdom of the Left's health care plan. In response, some liberals are vocally attacking Obamacare's critics.
» Read Heritage's Top 10 Reasons Why Obamacare is Wrong for America
"Upset citizens on the Right have turned out in incredible numbers," writes Heritage fellow Ernest Istook. "It has put the Left on the defensive and in counter-attack mode."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have called Obamacare opponents "un-American." They charge that those who question the government takeover of medicine are "orchestrating outrage" by using "scare-tactics" and spreading "disinformation" about the President's plan. And White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina vowed to "punch back twice as hard" and retaliate against dissenters.
The Left is now working to sanitize the town halls and prevent opponents from speaking out. One Big Labor-backed group is urging its members to overwhelm Obamacare critics with sheer numbers, Istook writes, while Congressmen are trying to duck the hard questions.
"Lost in the fight over the town-hall meetings," Heritage health policy expert Nina Owcharenko writes, "are the actual details of these bills."
» You can keep up with the facts at Heritage's FixHealthCarePolicy.com
Conservatives have hardly been able to get a word in edgewise in Congress, either. Owcharenko notes that liberals in Congress have often rejected even generous concessions and common-sense amendments offered by conservatives. One change that may have some life, however, is an amendment requiring members of Congress to forgo their lush plans and opt into the government plan.
But even if conservatives manage to tweak the plan around the edges, the overall proposal is still a terrible idea, writes Heritage economist Alison Fraser. "There are lots of bad ideas on the table in the health-reform debate."
But instead of listening to the opposition, the Left continues to push a $1 trillion government takeover of health care that, according to a study by the prestigious Lewin Group, will push 83 million people out of private-sector insurance, force 88 million out of their current, employer-provided insurance and dump 113 million into the "public option" health insurance plan.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Video - Remote Control Aircraft for Boarder Protection
This is really neat and very effective in helping to protect our boarder from terrorists and other illegal intruders meaning to do us harm.
I guess Obama will want to kill the program as it puts Islamic radicals at a disadvantage. They will have a much harder time attacking our country and causing chaos. Obama must have chaos to launch his agenda.
http://www.airventure.org/news/2009/090721_predator.html
I guess Obama will want to kill the program as it puts Islamic radicals at a disadvantage. They will have a much harder time attacking our country and causing chaos. Obama must have chaos to launch his agenda.
http://www.airventure.org/news/2009/090721_predator.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
