Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Mark Levin Rips Olbermann & Garofalo!
This Janeane Garofalo is a piece of Garbage! She slams hardworking Americans with the "RACE CARD"! She has no facts to back it up because she is a Stockholm Syndrome Drone.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Liberals Are Killing America
Written by Alan Caruba
It is not a new observation, but it is one that needs review and repeating every so often. Why do liberals always seem to get on the wrong side of any issue concerning America’s future, including its sovereignty, financial security, and defense?
I think this question is particularly timely given the public discussion of Obamacare that included a huge, peaceful protest march on Washington September 12th. The President’s nonstop campaign to get “reform” passed and the heated exchanges in Congress do not represent actual healthcare reform, but are testimony to a liberal obsession with a very bad idea.
You know something is desperately wrong when Democrats will not permit the proposed bill to enjoy a grace period of 72 hours during which both the public and members of Congress can actually read it before a vote is taken.
The irony of the current battle is that the bill will significantly change Medicare, a program advocated by liberals and, like Social Security, established by Democrats in Congress. It will destroy a free market for insurance programs individuals may choose to purchase. Or not.
There is no dispute that both programs, safety nets for Americans, have been helpful. Neither is voluntary There is no doubt that both are insolvent because they are unsustainable. This has been exacerbated by the way Congress has dipped into the funds intended to be set aside for them.
Obamacare will end up killing a lot of the people that Medicare was intended to save from the diseases and accidents that afflict the elderly.
It is not so much a “reform” as an admission of the failure of Congress to properly administer Medicare. Moreover, the “reform” will seize control of one sixth of the nation’s economy and dangerously, insidiously come between physician and patient.
It is a reform that is doomed to failure because there simply are not enough doctors, nurses, and other licensed and certified healthcare providers.
The global warming hoax and the arguments that “saving the environment” justifies a horrid “cap-and-trade” bill under consideration is another example of how liberal zeal for apparently noble “causes” reaps more harm than good. In the process, actual known, proven science has been abandoned.
In many ways, America has historically demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to Nature. The set asides of vast tracks of national forests and natural wonders such as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone attest to this and the national effort to clean our waters and air attest to this.
The problem, one that was anticipated and feared by the Founding Fathers, is the continued expansion of the federal government’s control over all aspects of our lives. The creation and existence of the departments of education and energy have harmed America in countless ways. The Environmental Protection Agency is an assault on science and property rights. All are essentially unconstitutional.
There never was any scientific evidence for “global warming” and yet it has been the all-purpose “go to” justification for restrictions that range from toilets that lack sufficient power to flush and, soon, a prohibition on the incandescent light bulb. Environmental restrictions have done irreparable harm to the nation’s economic growth.
Natural phenomenon from hurricanes to floods to forest fires have been blamed on global warming and this continues even though the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for a decade and what warming occurred after 1850 was a natural cyclical response to a previous little ice age that had begun in the 1300s.
Liberals, however, lack common sense. Environmentalism has transformed from conservation to a wholesale attack on America’s industrial base and, in a larger sense, capitalism. The Left has always attacked capitalism and the free market system that is essentially self-regulating.
This is particularly evident in liberal efforts to render the nation unable to access its own vast energy reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal. Energy is called the “master resource” because, without it, life can be harsh and progress in the form of innovation and invention, slows. Industrialized nations are differentiated from “undeveloped” nations almost entirely on the basis of the availability and widespread use of affordable energy.
Liberals, however, would not just leave vast parts and populations of the world bereft of the energy needed to grow crops, create jobs, and serve the basic needs of their people, but continue to use environmentalism to denigrate everything from driving one’s car to the use of plush toilet paper.
While America has always been “a nation of immigrants”, the process of accepting new citizens has been undermined in recent decades by the ceaseless flow of illegal aliens entering the nation and not merely ignoring the naturalization process, but also taking wrongful advantage of social programs such as welfare, our educational system, and our healthcare system. Liberals, however, continue to campaign for amnesty programs.
The liberal attack on the institution of marriage, on the free expression of religious faith, and other elements necessary to a civil society is yet another example of the way a nation they profess to love is undermined as its core values are systematically destroyed.
And let it be said that in the decades since the 1960s and 70s, men and women who have been elected to Congress and to occupy the White House on the basis of their avowed conservatism, have too often yielded to liberal arguments and programs. Tax and spend is now a bipartisan philosophy.
Liberals now hold majority political power in Congress and the White House, and the nation has been witness to the abandonment of our allies abroad and an appalling level of corruption, wasteful spending on pet projects, of which ACORN is just one example.
Liberals created the programs that led to massive mortgage loan failures; liberal programs enacted to impose “fairness” ignored the inability of everyone to own their own home. Something was desperately wrong when government entitles such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac owned over half of all mortgage loans.
The government’s failure to exercise oversight and regulation over all elements of the nation’s financial system, based on existing laws, has resulted in the greatest ponzi scheme of the modern era and the failure of banks and investment houses. The Federal Reserve is neither federal nor a reserve.
Lastly, the grasp for ever more power, the introduction of unelected “czars” in the executive branch, and the possibility that the most liberal president ever elected is seeking the destruction of the nation call for both action and an increased devotion to conservative principles.
Americans are demanding a return to governance based on the limits of the Constitution and the reduction of senseless spending and borrowing. America belongs to “We the People,” and We the People must defend it from those who see America only as a nation to be plundered.
Written by Alan Caruba
It is not a new observation, but it is one that needs review and repeating every so often. Why do liberals always seem to get on the wrong side of any issue concerning America’s future, including its sovereignty, financial security, and defense?
I think this question is particularly timely given the public discussion of Obamacare that included a huge, peaceful protest march on Washington September 12th. The President’s nonstop campaign to get “reform” passed and the heated exchanges in Congress do not represent actual healthcare reform, but are testimony to a liberal obsession with a very bad idea.
You know something is desperately wrong when Democrats will not permit the proposed bill to enjoy a grace period of 72 hours during which both the public and members of Congress can actually read it before a vote is taken.
The irony of the current battle is that the bill will significantly change Medicare, a program advocated by liberals and, like Social Security, established by Democrats in Congress. It will destroy a free market for insurance programs individuals may choose to purchase. Or not.
There is no dispute that both programs, safety nets for Americans, have been helpful. Neither is voluntary There is no doubt that both are insolvent because they are unsustainable. This has been exacerbated by the way Congress has dipped into the funds intended to be set aside for them.
Obamacare will end up killing a lot of the people that Medicare was intended to save from the diseases and accidents that afflict the elderly.
It is not so much a “reform” as an admission of the failure of Congress to properly administer Medicare. Moreover, the “reform” will seize control of one sixth of the nation’s economy and dangerously, insidiously come between physician and patient.
It is a reform that is doomed to failure because there simply are not enough doctors, nurses, and other licensed and certified healthcare providers.
The global warming hoax and the arguments that “saving the environment” justifies a horrid “cap-and-trade” bill under consideration is another example of how liberal zeal for apparently noble “causes” reaps more harm than good. In the process, actual known, proven science has been abandoned.
In many ways, America has historically demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to Nature. The set asides of vast tracks of national forests and natural wonders such as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone attest to this and the national effort to clean our waters and air attest to this.
The problem, one that was anticipated and feared by the Founding Fathers, is the continued expansion of the federal government’s control over all aspects of our lives. The creation and existence of the departments of education and energy have harmed America in countless ways. The Environmental Protection Agency is an assault on science and property rights. All are essentially unconstitutional.
There never was any scientific evidence for “global warming” and yet it has been the all-purpose “go to” justification for restrictions that range from toilets that lack sufficient power to flush and, soon, a prohibition on the incandescent light bulb. Environmental restrictions have done irreparable harm to the nation’s economic growth.
Natural phenomenon from hurricanes to floods to forest fires have been blamed on global warming and this continues even though the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for a decade and what warming occurred after 1850 was a natural cyclical response to a previous little ice age that had begun in the 1300s.
Liberals, however, lack common sense. Environmentalism has transformed from conservation to a wholesale attack on America’s industrial base and, in a larger sense, capitalism. The Left has always attacked capitalism and the free market system that is essentially self-regulating.
This is particularly evident in liberal efforts to render the nation unable to access its own vast energy reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal. Energy is called the “master resource” because, without it, life can be harsh and progress in the form of innovation and invention, slows. Industrialized nations are differentiated from “undeveloped” nations almost entirely on the basis of the availability and widespread use of affordable energy.
Liberals, however, would not just leave vast parts and populations of the world bereft of the energy needed to grow crops, create jobs, and serve the basic needs of their people, but continue to use environmentalism to denigrate everything from driving one’s car to the use of plush toilet paper.
While America has always been “a nation of immigrants”, the process of accepting new citizens has been undermined in recent decades by the ceaseless flow of illegal aliens entering the nation and not merely ignoring the naturalization process, but also taking wrongful advantage of social programs such as welfare, our educational system, and our healthcare system. Liberals, however, continue to campaign for amnesty programs.
The liberal attack on the institution of marriage, on the free expression of religious faith, and other elements necessary to a civil society is yet another example of the way a nation they profess to love is undermined as its core values are systematically destroyed.
And let it be said that in the decades since the 1960s and 70s, men and women who have been elected to Congress and to occupy the White House on the basis of their avowed conservatism, have too often yielded to liberal arguments and programs. Tax and spend is now a bipartisan philosophy.
Liberals now hold majority political power in Congress and the White House, and the nation has been witness to the abandonment of our allies abroad and an appalling level of corruption, wasteful spending on pet projects, of which ACORN is just one example.
Liberals created the programs that led to massive mortgage loan failures; liberal programs enacted to impose “fairness” ignored the inability of everyone to own their own home. Something was desperately wrong when government entitles such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac owned over half of all mortgage loans.
The government’s failure to exercise oversight and regulation over all elements of the nation’s financial system, based on existing laws, has resulted in the greatest ponzi scheme of the modern era and the failure of banks and investment houses. The Federal Reserve is neither federal nor a reserve.
Lastly, the grasp for ever more power, the introduction of unelected “czars” in the executive branch, and the possibility that the most liberal president ever elected is seeking the destruction of the nation call for both action and an increased devotion to conservative principles.
Americans are demanding a return to governance based on the limits of the Constitution and the reduction of senseless spending and borrowing. America belongs to “We the People,” and We the People must defend it from those who see America only as a nation to be plundered.
Written by Alan Caruba
Liberal Lies About National Health Care, Part 5
This is Part 5 from the great Ann Coulter.
What a brilliant mind she has and all we hear from the Left Wing Wackos is she is a Nazi. Left Wing wackos are the true Nazis just as they have been throughout history.
by Ann Coulter
(15) Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.
I'm not sure if this is another example of the left's wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they're seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN.
According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: "In 1994, Democrats' dysfunction over fulfilling a new president's campaign promise contributed to the party's loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress."
That's not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn't want it. (For more on this, see "ObamaCare.")
Bill Clinton had run as an old-school, moderate Democrat and then, as soon as he got elected, immediately became Che Guevara. (What is it with all our black presidents and these bait-and-switch tactics?)
Instead of pursuing "mend it, don't end it" on welfare and no "middle-class tax hike" -- as Clinton promised during the campaign -- he raised taxes, signed ridiculous gun restrictions into law, enacted "midnight basketball" as the solution to urban crime, announced that he was putting gays in the military and let Hillary run riot over health care.
But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times' own coverage of the 1994 congressional races.
Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the "Contract With America," which, according to the Times, promised "tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment." Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were "unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots."
These claims were immediately followed by ... oh, what was that word again? Now I remember ...
LANDSLIDE!
It was almost as if the voters agreed with the Republicans in opposing Clinton's risky health care scheme, then voted accordingly.
The Times' own polling showed that two-thirds of voters believed that "government should be less involved in solving national problems" -- which doesn't sound to me like voters being huffy with Clinton for failing to stage a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.
In a Hail Mary pass just before the election, President Clinton pulled Hillary off the health care beat. CNN's repository of liberal cliches, Bill Schneider, reported that Clinton was trying to calm voters by "removing the most visible symbol of the liberal tilt of the last two years, which is the first lady."
And what a morale boost for the Democrats that must have been! Kind of like firing the manager of a losing baseball team in the last week of the season.
Too late. Shouldn't have tried to socialize health care.
(16) America's relatively low life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves welfare-state health care is better.
The life expectancy argument is so stupid even The New York Times hasn't made it -- except in news stories quoting others or in the ramblings of the Times' more gullible op-ed columnists. You mostly hear the life expectancy argument from Hollywood actresses and profoundly dumb Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland.
Trying to evaluate the quality of a nation's health care by looking at life expectancy is like trying to estimate the birthrate by counting the number of flowers bought on Valentine's Day. (Or estimating future pregnancies of women with low self-esteem by adding up the total number of U.S. cities on a Bobby Brown tour and then multiplying by 2.)
There are lots of ways to get pregnant that don't require flowers or a backstage pass to a Bobby Brown concert, just as there are lots of ways to die that don't require setting foot inside a doctor's office.
For example, more Americans are murdered with guns than in any other industrialized country. (And it would be even more without concealed-carry laws! See John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime.") According to a 1997 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the homicide rate with firearms alone was 16 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
That will tend to reduce the U.S.'s "life expectancy" numbers, while telling us absolutely nothing about the country's medical care. (I promise that if you make it to a hospital alive, you are more likely to survive a gunshot wound in the U.S. than any place else in the world.)
It's comparing apples and oranges to talk about life expectancy as if it tracks with a country's health care system. What matters is the survival rate from the same starting line, to wit, the same medical condition. Not surprisingly, in the apples-to-apples comparisons, the U.S. medical system crushes the welfare-state countries.
For the glorious details, see next week's column.
by Ann Coulter
What a brilliant mind she has and all we hear from the Left Wing Wackos is she is a Nazi. Left Wing wackos are the true Nazis just as they have been throughout history.
by Ann Coulter
(15) Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.
I'm not sure if this is another example of the left's wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they're seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN.
According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: "In 1994, Democrats' dysfunction over fulfilling a new president's campaign promise contributed to the party's loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress."
That's not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn't want it. (For more on this, see "ObamaCare.")
Bill Clinton had run as an old-school, moderate Democrat and then, as soon as he got elected, immediately became Che Guevara. (What is it with all our black presidents and these bait-and-switch tactics?)
Instead of pursuing "mend it, don't end it" on welfare and no "middle-class tax hike" -- as Clinton promised during the campaign -- he raised taxes, signed ridiculous gun restrictions into law, enacted "midnight basketball" as the solution to urban crime, announced that he was putting gays in the military and let Hillary run riot over health care.
But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times' own coverage of the 1994 congressional races.
Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the "Contract With America," which, according to the Times, promised "tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment." Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were "unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots."
These claims were immediately followed by ... oh, what was that word again? Now I remember ...
LANDSLIDE!
It was almost as if the voters agreed with the Republicans in opposing Clinton's risky health care scheme, then voted accordingly.
The Times' own polling showed that two-thirds of voters believed that "government should be less involved in solving national problems" -- which doesn't sound to me like voters being huffy with Clinton for failing to stage a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.
In a Hail Mary pass just before the election, President Clinton pulled Hillary off the health care beat. CNN's repository of liberal cliches, Bill Schneider, reported that Clinton was trying to calm voters by "removing the most visible symbol of the liberal tilt of the last two years, which is the first lady."
And what a morale boost for the Democrats that must have been! Kind of like firing the manager of a losing baseball team in the last week of the season.
Too late. Shouldn't have tried to socialize health care.
(16) America's relatively low life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves welfare-state health care is better.
The life expectancy argument is so stupid even The New York Times hasn't made it -- except in news stories quoting others or in the ramblings of the Times' more gullible op-ed columnists. You mostly hear the life expectancy argument from Hollywood actresses and profoundly dumb Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland.
Trying to evaluate the quality of a nation's health care by looking at life expectancy is like trying to estimate the birthrate by counting the number of flowers bought on Valentine's Day. (Or estimating future pregnancies of women with low self-esteem by adding up the total number of U.S. cities on a Bobby Brown tour and then multiplying by 2.)
There are lots of ways to get pregnant that don't require flowers or a backstage pass to a Bobby Brown concert, just as there are lots of ways to die that don't require setting foot inside a doctor's office.
For example, more Americans are murdered with guns than in any other industrialized country. (And it would be even more without concealed-carry laws! See John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime.") According to a 1997 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the homicide rate with firearms alone was 16 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
That will tend to reduce the U.S.'s "life expectancy" numbers, while telling us absolutely nothing about the country's medical care. (I promise that if you make it to a hospital alive, you are more likely to survive a gunshot wound in the U.S. than any place else in the world.)
It's comparing apples and oranges to talk about life expectancy as if it tracks with a country's health care system. What matters is the survival rate from the same starting line, to wit, the same medical condition. Not surprisingly, in the apples-to-apples comparisons, the U.S. medical system crushes the welfare-state countries.
For the glorious details, see next week's column.
by Ann Coulter
Monday, September 28, 2009
Mark Levin Kicks Some Harvard Ass
Mark Levin, the Great One, does a number on this Harvard Drone.
C'mon, if the guy made it through Harvard and he still supports Marxism, he deserves to be the Butt of a joke.
C'mon, if the guy made it through Harvard and he still supports Marxism, he deserves to be the Butt of a joke.
Sotero's Civilian National Security FARCE
Here was an article that was from July, 2008.
Obviously not enough people read this and voted for the Politically Correct choice, the appeaser, B. Hussein Obama. Is he promoting a civilian force to try and take over the Country in 2012? Obama did side with the Dictator in Honduras, did he not?
Again the Liberal Fringe Media lets Barry go unchecked. They all have Blood on their Hands as well as the Democrat Party.
This article below was at the great Americanthinker.com .
Obama's Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary
Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."
The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.
The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.
Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,
"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."
Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."
That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.
Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.
In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.
If any supporters of Obama do not believe the truth, listen below with your own set of ears.
Obviously not enough people read this and voted for the Politically Correct choice, the appeaser, B. Hussein Obama. Is he promoting a civilian force to try and take over the Country in 2012? Obama did side with the Dictator in Honduras, did he not?
Again the Liberal Fringe Media lets Barry go unchecked. They all have Blood on their Hands as well as the Democrat Party.
This article below was at the great Americanthinker.com .
Obama's Civilian National Security Force
By Lee Cary
Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."
The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity. But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself.
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency." He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.
The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.
Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,
"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."
Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."
That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.
Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars. Here's how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion. Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand. That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.
In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.
If any supporters of Obama do not believe the truth, listen below with your own set of ears.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The White Rodney King
Hon. James David Manning, PhD continues speaking about the Patrick Henry style revolution. He also speaks about white people rioting and the alleged Larry Sinclair & Obama affair.
If this Video is down it is because The Honorable James David Manning is becoming a Public Enemy. I guess "The Truth will set you Free" only applies to Marxists, Commies & Liberals. For real Patriots like The Honorable James David Manning, it means censorship.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obama’s Amerika
Why is B. Hussein Obama so angry and bitter? He’s had a charmed life so far. Some Drones helped him through college along with American Taxpayers. The same goes with his angry, radical wife.
Now they will wreak havoc upon America. You know, make us pay for my Rich, Slave owning family. Wait, my family was not rich nor did they live in America even remotely close to when there was Slavery. But we must pay, forever!
Why aren’t the Republicans who fought to end slavery ever mentioned or thanked?
The real problem here has been spreading for 25 years. That problem is Political Correctness (It was designed by radicals to weaken and then destroy Western Civilization).
We now have a President who sticks up for Gang Members and Terrorists. C’mon the guy won’t even say the word “Terrorist”. We can thank these Anti-Americans for giving us Judges like Sotomayor. Judges who openly make Racist comments against Whites and she is rewarded. Happy yet? How about Obama having his Thugs tell America that the Stimulus money will help bring jobs, but only for Minorities and Women, not White Men, their words.
So the next time someone you know gets brutally murdered, raped or is a Victim of a group of thugs doing a Home Invasion, we know who to thank. We can thank those hypocrites who have pushed this liberalism and Political Correctness on us.
How about having a President who works with a Criminal Organization, ACORN, where they promote bringing underage, illegal immigrants into America to be Prostitutes? Are you digging this Political Correctness now?
When our President had heroes such as Malcolm X and Frank Marshall Davis, self avowed Anti-White and Communist, are you happy with this “Change”?
I am not “White Bread” nor some privileged guy born with a Silver Spoon in my mouth. So any vile Liberals that just throw down the “Race Card” to dispose of this writing do not have a leg to stand on. If they want to discuss “Racism” then have them look no further than their Messiah, the President. Not noticing he is a Racist is like not noticing a 5000 lb. Elephant in your living room.
This is not black or white or Republican or DEMONcrat. This is about wanting to protect our Country. So if that makes someone a Racist then this Political Correctness disease is doing it’s job. It has eaten at the very core of our culture, all the while destroying the USA.
In Obama’s Amerika, when ultra-rich Rappers shout out the “N” word and praise having a “BLACK” President (Black or White, does it matter now that he is not a good President?).
When a school bus with a Majority being Black children attack a White Student (minority) and cheers go on and on. The bus taking these kids to the same type of public school where Obama will not send his own daughters? The Public School system, that Obama wants to pull vouchers from, which have helped the poor children try for a better life.
Obama’s Amerika which was supposed to bring “Hope and Change” only allows an American to voice his/her opinion if they agree with the Thugs in the White House. Are we enjoying the “Hope & Change” now?
This Marxist should not have even been a Senator. If he was truly Vetted he would have been booted from all Political Positions years ago. He is not qualified to work at the failing Post Office. Any job with a background check would void B. Hussein Obama.
This man is sitting in the White House? Are we insane? This is all about Political Correctness. He NEVER would have gotten this far without Political Correctness pressuring Light Weight Americans to vote for him and support this failure.
Now they will wreak havoc upon America. You know, make us pay for my Rich, Slave owning family. Wait, my family was not rich nor did they live in America even remotely close to when there was Slavery. But we must pay, forever!
Why aren’t the Republicans who fought to end slavery ever mentioned or thanked?
The real problem here has been spreading for 25 years. That problem is Political Correctness (It was designed by radicals to weaken and then destroy Western Civilization).
We now have a President who sticks up for Gang Members and Terrorists. C’mon the guy won’t even say the word “Terrorist”. We can thank these Anti-Americans for giving us Judges like Sotomayor. Judges who openly make Racist comments against Whites and she is rewarded. Happy yet? How about Obama having his Thugs tell America that the Stimulus money will help bring jobs, but only for Minorities and Women, not White Men, their words.
So the next time someone you know gets brutally murdered, raped or is a Victim of a group of thugs doing a Home Invasion, we know who to thank. We can thank those hypocrites who have pushed this liberalism and Political Correctness on us.
How about having a President who works with a Criminal Organization, ACORN, where they promote bringing underage, illegal immigrants into America to be Prostitutes? Are you digging this Political Correctness now?
When our President had heroes such as Malcolm X and Frank Marshall Davis, self avowed Anti-White and Communist, are you happy with this “Change”?
I am not “White Bread” nor some privileged guy born with a Silver Spoon in my mouth. So any vile Liberals that just throw down the “Race Card” to dispose of this writing do not have a leg to stand on. If they want to discuss “Racism” then have them look no further than their Messiah, the President. Not noticing he is a Racist is like not noticing a 5000 lb. Elephant in your living room.
This is not black or white or Republican or DEMONcrat. This is about wanting to protect our Country. So if that makes someone a Racist then this Political Correctness disease is doing it’s job. It has eaten at the very core of our culture, all the while destroying the USA.
In Obama’s Amerika, when ultra-rich Rappers shout out the “N” word and praise having a “BLACK” President (Black or White, does it matter now that he is not a good President?).
When a school bus with a Majority being Black children attack a White Student (minority) and cheers go on and on. The bus taking these kids to the same type of public school where Obama will not send his own daughters? The Public School system, that Obama wants to pull vouchers from, which have helped the poor children try for a better life.
Obama’s Amerika which was supposed to bring “Hope and Change” only allows an American to voice his/her opinion if they agree with the Thugs in the White House. Are we enjoying the “Hope & Change” now?
This Marxist should not have even been a Senator. If he was truly Vetted he would have been booted from all Political Positions years ago. He is not qualified to work at the failing Post Office. Any job with a background check would void B. Hussein Obama.
This man is sitting in the White House? Are we insane? This is all about Political Correctness. He NEVER would have gotten this far without Political Correctness pressuring Light Weight Americans to vote for him and support this failure.
IT COULDN'T HAPPEN?
What would you say if I gave you 11 reasons why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States ?
1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America 's largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America ."
2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama's first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO's of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 32 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010... That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan . That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!"
7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America 's past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela 's strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America .
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!"
8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine." That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!!"
9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that doesn't require the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama's Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!!"
10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come.
I know what you will say. "That will never happen in America !"
We must do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2010 ...
Pass this on to every freedom loving American you know.
This is submitted from our friend Neil.
http://chuckontherightside.blogspot.com/
1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America 's largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America ."
2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama's first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO's of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 32 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010... That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan . That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!"
7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America 's past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela 's strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America .
Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!"
8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine." That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!!"
9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that doesn't require the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama's Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !!!"
10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.
Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America !"
11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come.
I know what you will say. "That will never happen in America !"
We must do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2010 ...
Pass this on to every freedom loving American you know.
This is submitted from our friend Neil.
http://chuckontherightside.blogspot.com/
Friday, September 25, 2009
Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |from Thursday, September 04, 2008
Election '08:Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of PublicAllies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.
"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," PublicAllies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.
Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." When they're not protesting, they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.
Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" — future "social entrepreneurs."
The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.
Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."
Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."
One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."
The government now funds about half of PublicAllies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.
The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.
Election '08:Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of PublicAllies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.
"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," PublicAllies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.
Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." When they're not protesting, they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.
Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" — future "social entrepreneurs."
The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.
Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."
Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."
One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."
The government now funds about half of PublicAllies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.
The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Is Obama a Joke?
A teacher in Long Island, New York, who is an Obama supporter, asked her 4th grade class,”How many of you are Obama fans?”
Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands, except for Little Johnny.
The Liberal teacher asked Little Johnny why he decided to be different?
Little Johnny said, “Because I’m not an Obama fan.”
The teacher asked, “Why aren’t you an Obama fan?”
Johnny said, “Because I’m a Conservative .”
The teacher asked him why he’s a Conservative .
Little Johnny answered, ” Well, my Mom’s a Conservative and my Dad’s a Conservative, so I’m a Conservative.”
Annoyed by this answer, the insane teacher asked, “If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?”
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, ”That would make me an Obama fan.”
Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands, except for Little Johnny.
The Liberal teacher asked Little Johnny why he decided to be different?
Little Johnny said, “Because I’m not an Obama fan.”
The teacher asked, “Why aren’t you an Obama fan?”
Johnny said, “Because I’m a Conservative .”
The teacher asked him why he’s a Conservative .
Little Johnny answered, ” Well, my Mom’s a Conservative and my Dad’s a Conservative, so I’m a Conservative.”
Annoyed by this answer, the insane teacher asked, “If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?”
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, ”That would make me an Obama fan.”
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
A Brit discusses political correctness in the UK
Is America following the UK down this path of self-destruction?
Political Correctness is a disease.
Political Correctness is a disease.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Let me get this straight...
Obama's health care plan will be
Written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,
Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it,
Signed by a president who smokes,
Funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,
Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
Financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,
Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it,
Signed by a president who smokes,
Funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes,
Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
Financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Soros: Republic Enemy #1
Written by Jim O'Neill
“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”—George Soros
“George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and
anti-good.” — Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America’s moral decline, at the feet of one man?
It is indeed possible.
If George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until the real thing comes along. Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block.
What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be a world class philosopher, despises capitalism, and just loves social engineering.
Uh oh. Can you say “trouble,” boys and girls?
Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.
György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto—a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.
The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. Soros is an Esperanto word meaning “to soar.”
In 1944 Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews. The Soros children were all given fake identity papers, and were shipped out to various Christian families. George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.
Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”
In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik notes that, “70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”
During an interview with “Sixty Minute’s” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”
Sweetness & Light
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who
swore that you were his adopted godson.
SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the
psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
SOROS: No.
Of course he didn’t feel guilty. Soros has the moral depth of a clam. Nonetheless, he has said, “my goal is to become the conscience of the world.”
In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”
Can you imagine the results of this messianic sociopath being “the conscience of the world?” Ye gods.
Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994. Two of Popper’s most influential teachings concerned “the open society,” and Fallibilism.
Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.
The “open society” basically refers to a “test and evaluate” approach to social engineering. Regarding “open society” Roy Childs writes, “Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess.
In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation.
Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.
In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for “The American Thinker” she says, “Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically…almost overnight.”
In 1994 Soros crowed in “The New Republic” that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.” The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.” The “Soros Empire” indeed.
In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At the time, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros “a villain, and a moron.” Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people.”
The website Greek national Pride reports, “[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros’ role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.”
France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.
Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for “illegal market manipulation.” Elizabeth Crum writes that “The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. [Soros’] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary’s economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.”
Soros’ grasp, greed, gluttony have a global reach
My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.
But what about America? Soros told Australia’s national newspaper “The Australian” “America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,” he said, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment” in American’s consumption habits.
Ready to tighten your belts, America?
World financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”
Soros also told “The Australian” that the world financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”
Stimulating. Have you found the job losses, house foreclosures, and incredible national debt—stimulating? Me neither.
Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil (yes, billion with a “b”), in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama’s largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).
Tait Trussel writes, “The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security.”
Do you get the feeling that American taxpayers are being treated like gullible suckers?
(By the way, if you want a short primer on Far Left economics—and a great cartoon from a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch—go to actor Michael Moriarty’s website).
A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. This is their mission: “This blog is dedicated to all…who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of…George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day stop preying upon the world’s poor…that justice will be served.”
Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O’Reilly said on “The O’Reilly Factor” that “Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous….”
In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, “Soros uses his philanthropy to change—or more accurately deconstruct—the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an ideology of rights and entitlements.”
Perhaps the most important of these “whistle blowers” are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book “The Shadow Party” outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.
Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. I don’t have time to do the subject justice in this article, but FrontPage’s Jamie Glazov has an excellent interview with Richard Poe, which will fill you in on many of the facts.
The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.
DiscoverTheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, “By his [Soros’] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government—a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.”
The above quote was, of course, written before the Presidential Election. So was the following quote from a November 2008 edition of the German magazine “Der Spiegel,” in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS should do after taking office. “I think we need a large stimulus package….” Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.
Soros also said that “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights.”
Any of this sound familiar?
Although Soros doesn’t (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.
Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by “The Baltimore Chronicle’s” Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.
In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton—Dick Cheney’s old stomping grounds.
When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time. Republican Senator John McCain was the keynote speaker at the “Soros Convention” (so labelled by the late Robert Novak) in Philadelphia.
Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.
And I musn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the LSM (Lame Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to.
As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”
Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America’s traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments
in social engineering.”
Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.
Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.”
As I’ve said before, America currently faces the greatest challenge to its existence as a free republic since the Civil War. And as we go, so goes the world.
So is Soros to blame for all of America’s woes?
Without Soros, would the Saul Alinsky Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes—but to much less of a degree.
The purpose of this article is to point out that without the financial skullduggery and Machiavellian manipulations of Soros, America would be a considerably safer, saner, and stabler place to live.
America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America.
His conduct has been immoral, duplicitous, and traitorous. Stripping Soros of his U.S. citizenship, should be one of the first steps taken during the upcoming courtroom trials.
And trials there must be. No matter the cost, the nest of vipers on Capitol Hill, and all of the traitors in the government at large, must be brought to task for their behavior, or a free America is doomed.
The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
These days, Patrick Henry’s sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago—it’s a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage and heart.
Laus Deo.
By Jim O'Neill
“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”—George Soros
“George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and
anti-good.” — Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America’s moral decline, at the feet of one man?
It is indeed possible.
If George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until the real thing comes along. Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block.
What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be a world class philosopher, despises capitalism, and just loves social engineering.
Uh oh. Can you say “trouble,” boys and girls?
Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.
György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto—a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.
The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. Soros is an Esperanto word meaning “to soar.”
In 1944 Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews. The Soros children were all given fake identity papers, and were shipped out to various Christian families. George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.
Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”
In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik notes that, “70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”
During an interview with “Sixty Minute’s” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”
Sweetness & Light
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who
swore that you were his adopted godson.
SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the
psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
SOROS: No.
Of course he didn’t feel guilty. Soros has the moral depth of a clam. Nonetheless, he has said, “my goal is to become the conscience of the world.”
In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”
Can you imagine the results of this messianic sociopath being “the conscience of the world?” Ye gods.
Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994. Two of Popper’s most influential teachings concerned “the open society,” and Fallibilism.
Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.
The “open society” basically refers to a “test and evaluate” approach to social engineering. Regarding “open society” Roy Childs writes, “Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess.
In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation.
Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.
In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for “The American Thinker” she says, “Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically…almost overnight.”
In 1994 Soros crowed in “The New Republic” that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.” The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.” The “Soros Empire” indeed.
In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At the time, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros “a villain, and a moron.” Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people.”
The website Greek national Pride reports, “[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros’ role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.”
France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.
Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for “illegal market manipulation.” Elizabeth Crum writes that “The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. [Soros’] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary’s economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.”
Soros’ grasp, greed, gluttony have a global reach
My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.
But what about America? Soros told Australia’s national newspaper “The Australian” “America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,” he said, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment” in American’s consumption habits.
Ready to tighten your belts, America?
World financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”
Soros also told “The Australian” that the world financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”
Stimulating. Have you found the job losses, house foreclosures, and incredible national debt—stimulating? Me neither.
Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil (yes, billion with a “b”), in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama’s largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).
Tait Trussel writes, “The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security.”
Do you get the feeling that American taxpayers are being treated like gullible suckers?
(By the way, if you want a short primer on Far Left economics—and a great cartoon from a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch—go to actor Michael Moriarty’s website).
A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. This is their mission: “This blog is dedicated to all…who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of…George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day stop preying upon the world’s poor…that justice will be served.”
Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O’Reilly said on “The O’Reilly Factor” that “Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous….”
In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, “Soros uses his philanthropy to change—or more accurately deconstruct—the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an ideology of rights and entitlements.”
Perhaps the most important of these “whistle blowers” are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book “The Shadow Party” outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.
Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. I don’t have time to do the subject justice in this article, but FrontPage’s Jamie Glazov has an excellent interview with Richard Poe, which will fill you in on many of the facts.
The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.
DiscoverTheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, “By his [Soros’] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government—a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.”
The above quote was, of course, written before the Presidential Election. So was the following quote from a November 2008 edition of the German magazine “Der Spiegel,” in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS should do after taking office. “I think we need a large stimulus package….” Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.
Soros also said that “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights.”
Any of this sound familiar?
Although Soros doesn’t (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.
Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by “The Baltimore Chronicle’s” Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.
In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton—Dick Cheney’s old stomping grounds.
When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time. Republican Senator John McCain was the keynote speaker at the “Soros Convention” (so labelled by the late Robert Novak) in Philadelphia.
Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.
And I musn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the LSM (Lame Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to.
As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”
Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America’s traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments
in social engineering.”
Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.
Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.”
As I’ve said before, America currently faces the greatest challenge to its existence as a free republic since the Civil War. And as we go, so goes the world.
So is Soros to blame for all of America’s woes?
Without Soros, would the Saul Alinsky Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes—but to much less of a degree.
The purpose of this article is to point out that without the financial skullduggery and Machiavellian manipulations of Soros, America would be a considerably safer, saner, and stabler place to live.
America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America.
His conduct has been immoral, duplicitous, and traitorous. Stripping Soros of his U.S. citizenship, should be one of the first steps taken during the upcoming courtroom trials.
And trials there must be. No matter the cost, the nest of vipers on Capitol Hill, and all of the traitors in the government at large, must be brought to task for their behavior, or a free America is doomed.
The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”
These days, Patrick Henry’s sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago—it’s a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage and heart.
Laus Deo.
By Jim O'Neill
Cupp To Larry King: My Generation Not Racist
"...I think this speaks to sort of a generational gap. You know, my generation is not always so quick to jump to race. I think the Maureen Dowd's and the Jimmy Carter's tend to go there because that's what was always done. But my generation doesn't see racism in a Joe Wilson or racism at a tea party or a town hall. We're looking at the issues. And to Reverend Sharpton's credit, I think he's right. I think these issues are too important to racialize them, and project this imagined racism on to health care or any other political issue."
S.E. Cupp on Larry King Live 9/16/2009
S.E. Cupp on Larry King Live 9/16/2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
S. E. Cupp Blames Obama
Conservative columnist S.E. Cupp, who is a contributor to the Washington Post and Politico, blames President Obama for David Letterman being able to joke about Sarah Palin
Home invasion robbers pose as Obamacare activists
Written by the great Michelle Malkin
This man is wearing scrubs, but he’s not a doctor.
He was part of a ring of violent thugs who posed as Obamacare supporters to pull off a terrifying home invasion robbery.
Newsday reports (hat tip – The Anchoress):
They were well-dressed when they knocked on the door of a Huntington home last month and said they had information about President Barack Obama’s health care plan.
That’s how they got inside to commit a violent home invasion on Aug. 29, a Suffolk prosecutor said Monday.
Benjamin Thompson had a stethoscope around his neck and Natalie Desir carried a clipboard with pamphlets, Assistant District Attorney Glenn Kurtzrock said after their arraignments in Riverhead.
A woman who lives at the house answered the door and said she would take one of the pamphlets. That’s when Thompson, 31, of Brooklyn and Desir, 26, of Nyack forced their way inside, Kurtzrock said.
He gave the following account:
Another man, Vance Jackson, had been hiding outside and also forced his way into the home. Jackson, 46, of Yonkers took the woman’s boyfriend upstairs and shot him in the neck, chased him downstairs and shot him several more times.
Thompson shot the female resident in the foot while she was sitting next to her 2-year-old daughter and also pistol-whipped the woman’s mother, injuring her head.
The three fled with about $4,000 in cash in a getaway car driven by Theodore Briggs, 40, of the Bronx. A fifth suspect who was outside is still at large.
Thompson had been previously convicted of attempted robbery and rape. Jackson’s rap sheet included robbery and criminal possession of a weapon.
The Daily News reports that the “two hatched the home invasion plan while waiting to meet with their parole officers in the Bronx.”
Imagine the national uproar that would be occurring right now if these home invaders had posed as Tea Party activists.
By Michelle Malkin
This man is wearing scrubs, but he’s not a doctor.
He was part of a ring of violent thugs who posed as Obamacare supporters to pull off a terrifying home invasion robbery.
Newsday reports (hat tip – The Anchoress):
They were well-dressed when they knocked on the door of a Huntington home last month and said they had information about President Barack Obama’s health care plan.
That’s how they got inside to commit a violent home invasion on Aug. 29, a Suffolk prosecutor said Monday.
Benjamin Thompson had a stethoscope around his neck and Natalie Desir carried a clipboard with pamphlets, Assistant District Attorney Glenn Kurtzrock said after their arraignments in Riverhead.
A woman who lives at the house answered the door and said she would take one of the pamphlets. That’s when Thompson, 31, of Brooklyn and Desir, 26, of Nyack forced their way inside, Kurtzrock said.
He gave the following account:
Another man, Vance Jackson, had been hiding outside and also forced his way into the home. Jackson, 46, of Yonkers took the woman’s boyfriend upstairs and shot him in the neck, chased him downstairs and shot him several more times.
Thompson shot the female resident in the foot while she was sitting next to her 2-year-old daughter and also pistol-whipped the woman’s mother, injuring her head.
The three fled with about $4,000 in cash in a getaway car driven by Theodore Briggs, 40, of the Bronx. A fifth suspect who was outside is still at large.
Thompson had been previously convicted of attempted robbery and rape. Jackson’s rap sheet included robbery and criminal possession of a weapon.
The Daily News reports that the “two hatched the home invasion plan while waiting to meet with their parole officers in the Bronx.”
Imagine the national uproar that would be occurring right now if these home invaders had posed as Tea Party activists.
By Michelle Malkin
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The Most Explosive ACORN Video Yet!
Someone has to go to Jail now!
Will ACORN's Lawyer, B. Hussein Obama bail them out this time.
Or will he go down with them as well he should.
The Democrat Party has Blood on their hands.
Their Vetting Process is nill, none, zippo.
As Reporter Stanley Kurtz wrote last year, ACORN is "the largest radical group in America." Writer Sol Stern in 2003 noted ACORN is the successor to the 1960's "New Left" with an "agenda of anti-capitalism." It should be no surprise then that they have been involved in protests against private businesses, forcing private companies to push subprime loans and actions which have harmed our economy.
Will ACORN's Lawyer, B. Hussein Obama bail them out this time.
Or will he go down with them as well he should.
The Democrat Party has Blood on their hands.
Their Vetting Process is nill, none, zippo.
As Reporter Stanley Kurtz wrote last year, ACORN is "the largest radical group in America." Writer Sol Stern in 2003 noted ACORN is the successor to the 1960's "New Left" with an "agenda of anti-capitalism." It should be no surprise then that they have been involved in protests against private businesses, forcing private companies to push subprime loans and actions which have harmed our economy.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Support Joe Wilson!
Support Joe Wilson from liberal attacks by signing a "RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT." To sign this petition in support of Joe Wilson please click here.
It only takes a minute.
Joe has to apologize for speaking he truth meanwhile Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Reid and their ring leader, B. Hussein Obama slam America with lies!
It only takes a minute.
Joe has to apologize for speaking he truth meanwhile Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Reid and their ring leader, B. Hussein Obama slam America with lies!
Man charged with hitting bicyclist with his car near Lake Worth
Below is just one of many problems with illegal immigrants. Note the word ILLEGAL! If I am speaking out about something that is illegal then why do the Left Wingers call me Racist. If an an illegal immigrant broke into a Liberals home and murdered their family murders, would that "Illegal" act be okay? We have to think of every Illegal Alien as a Murderer, Rapist, Terrorist (okay for Obama maybe we can leave off using the word Terrorist) or Thief. Enough is enough!
LAKE WORTH — Authorities have arrested a Guatemalan national on charges that he struck a biker with his car Sunday near Lake Worth's public beach and then hit him a second time as he fled the scene.
Tadeo Santizo, 20, was driving north on A1A Sunday morning in a borrowed car when he struck bicyclist Kevin Hagenstad, 41, of Boca Raton, sending him flying into the road, according to an arrest report.
In an effort to get away, Santizo, an illegal immigrant, then backed the car up and struck Hagenstad again, authorities say. He sped off but then stopped the car, and he and the passengers ran toward the beach.
With the help of some local surfers, Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputies tracked down Santizo in the water and brought him back to the beach.
He was eventually charged with leaving the scene of a crash involving an injury, driving without a valid license, reckless driving and resisting arrest without violence.
Hagenstad was taken to St. Mary's Medical Center to be treated for several broken bones and ribs, and various cuts and road rashes along his body.
Santizo was booked into the Palm Beach County Jail.
LAKE WORTH — Authorities have arrested a Guatemalan national on charges that he struck a biker with his car Sunday near Lake Worth's public beach and then hit him a second time as he fled the scene.
Tadeo Santizo, 20, was driving north on A1A Sunday morning in a borrowed car when he struck bicyclist Kevin Hagenstad, 41, of Boca Raton, sending him flying into the road, according to an arrest report.
In an effort to get away, Santizo, an illegal immigrant, then backed the car up and struck Hagenstad again, authorities say. He sped off but then stopped the car, and he and the passengers ran toward the beach.
With the help of some local surfers, Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputies tracked down Santizo in the water and brought him back to the beach.
He was eventually charged with leaving the scene of a crash involving an injury, driving without a valid license, reckless driving and resisting arrest without violence.
Hagenstad was taken to St. Mary's Medical Center to be treated for several broken bones and ribs, and various cuts and road rashes along his body.
Santizo was booked into the Palm Beach County Jail.
Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series
Written by the Great Ann Coulter
(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.
This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.
The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.
You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)
Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.
Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.
If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."
Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!
(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.
Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?
Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?
Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.
Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").
To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.
Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.
(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.
Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)
On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.
On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.
If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?
By Ann Coulter
(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.
This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.
The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.
You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)
Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.
Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.
If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."
Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!
(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.
Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?
Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?
Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.
Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").
To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.
Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.
(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.
This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.
Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)
On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.
On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.
If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?
By Ann Coulter
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland, twice.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens!
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, then please forward.
Just think how powerful our government is getting!
They think these other countries just didn't do it right.
Learn from history!
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens!
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens.'
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
If you are too, then please forward.
Just think how powerful our government is getting!
They think these other countries just didn't do it right.
Learn from history!
Friday, September 11, 2009
ACORN Prostitution Investigation
ACORN Prostitution Investigation - James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles - Part 1
ACORN Prostitution Investigation - James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles - Part 2
Click above to watch the scathing ACORN undercover investigation videos.
Now if this does not open the eyes of any American then he/she is so far gone, they are probably a cohort of these THUGS.
The question should not be who does not want their school kids around B. Hussein Obama. The question should be who WANTS their children around the false Messiah.
Those parents should be looked into for child endangerment.
Another point to be made is are all United States Tax payers happy to be funding billions of dollars to a criminal organization like ACORN.
What, you are not on the phone yet to your Congress Representatives and Senators to stop funding Obama's ACORN immediately?
ACORN Prostitution Investigation - James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles - Part 2
Click above to watch the scathing ACORN undercover investigation videos.
Now if this does not open the eyes of any American then he/she is so far gone, they are probably a cohort of these THUGS.
The question should not be who does not want their school kids around B. Hussein Obama. The question should be who WANTS their children around the false Messiah.
Those parents should be looked into for child endangerment.
Another point to be made is are all United States Tax payers happy to be funding billions of dollars to a criminal organization like ACORN.
What, you are not on the phone yet to your Congress Representatives and Senators to stop funding Obama's ACORN immediately?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Barack Hussein Obama - Still Holds Muslim Beliefs
For 8 years Hollyweird & MSM said GWB was a Nazi. Now look who they have. Their Non-Vetted false Messiah is ruining this great Country.
If you still support B. Hussein Obama well then you must live under a rock or you are comfortable with Racism & Marxism.
All of his Radical partners were known before the election. Now more Thug friends of his are crawling out from under the rocks.
Obama wants to take our guns, our money, our freedom of speech and take over Health Care. Does this sound like History repeating itself?
The Honorable James David Manning compares Obama to Hitler.
If you need a wake up call for remembrance of 9/11, then watch this Video above.
Sarah Palin CRUSHES Obama in Facebook Response to Congress Speech
Listen to the narrator at Conservative New Media speak about Sarah Palin's response to Barry Sotero's speech, aka B. Hussein Obama.
Submitted by our Conservative friends at http://chuckontherightside.blogspot.com/
If the Video is down, we have her words below:
After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.
Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.
Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.
In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.
In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.
It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.
Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.
Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.
- Sarah Palin
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Liberalism = Fascism
Liberals always try to silence dissent, while striving to state they are pro free speech. They like free speech for themselves, not for the opposition.
There is a long history of liberal fascism, from Marx and Mao to Hitler and Obama.
Whenever you hear a liberal say, "There is no debate", "This has been settled" and "There is no point in going any further" you know they are clueless as to anything beyond the talking points of the subject. A prime example of this was Gibbs yesterday at the press briefing when asked about healthcare. He said, "we won, get over it".
Liberals are racist, eugenicists. They started welfare and planned parenthood and are now pushing government healthcare. Welfare is designed to keep the poor, poor. Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist, with the hopes of killing off inner city babies before they are born. The healthcare system der fuhrer is pushing is designed to eliminate 80% of the cost of health care to the 20% that uses it the most, the elderly. Over 50, have a heart attack or cancer, bummer. Eugenics at its finest. And, the democratic party is the party of slavery and the party that fought civil rights in the sixties and seventies. Hell, Byrd is still in office for the Democrats and he is a klansman. The GOP freed the slaves. Martin Luther King Jr. was a GOP member, because the GOP believes in standing on your own.
Yes, the truth hurts. Liberals are out numbered by conservatives 2 to 1 in a recent gallup poll. Liberals like to call conservatives nazi's and that is cool. No woman ever dreamt of being tied to a bed and being ravished by a liberal. Besides, the nazi's were the national socialist party.....liberals, practicing eugenics. Those weren't easy bake ovens paisano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
There is a long history of liberal fascism, from Marx and Mao to Hitler and Obama.
Whenever you hear a liberal say, "There is no debate", "This has been settled" and "There is no point in going any further" you know they are clueless as to anything beyond the talking points of the subject. A prime example of this was Gibbs yesterday at the press briefing when asked about healthcare. He said, "we won, get over it".
Liberals are racist, eugenicists. They started welfare and planned parenthood and are now pushing government healthcare. Welfare is designed to keep the poor, poor. Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist, with the hopes of killing off inner city babies before they are born. The healthcare system der fuhrer is pushing is designed to eliminate 80% of the cost of health care to the 20% that uses it the most, the elderly. Over 50, have a heart attack or cancer, bummer. Eugenics at its finest. And, the democratic party is the party of slavery and the party that fought civil rights in the sixties and seventies. Hell, Byrd is still in office for the Democrats and he is a klansman. The GOP freed the slaves. Martin Luther King Jr. was a GOP member, because the GOP believes in standing on your own.
Yes, the truth hurts. Liberals are out numbered by conservatives 2 to 1 in a recent gallup poll. Liberals like to call conservatives nazi's and that is cool. No woman ever dreamt of being tied to a bed and being ravished by a liberal. Besides, the nazi's were the national socialist party.....liberals, practicing eugenics. Those weren't easy bake ovens paisano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Couric vs. Coulter
Watch Ann Coulter go at it with that small boy Katie Couric.
Ann Coulter had the right idea after 9/11. Go after the Infidel Slaughtering Muslims.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
GOP Congressman fears Democratic totalitarian state
Written by Muriel Kane
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) believes that President Obama is bent on turning the United States into a totalitarian state and already has all the tools he needs for the purpose.
“He has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government,” Broun told a meeting of local Georgia Republicans on Wednesday, citing the creation of a private army, a ban on gun ownership, and complete control of the press.
The threat of Democratic Party totalitarianism appears to be an issue very close to Broun’s heart. Last month, he described President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as “a socialistic elite” and responded to a question about swine flu preparations by warning, “They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over.”
Broun bases his claim that Obama intends to set up a private army on a speech during last year’s presidential campaign in which the then-candidate called for the establishment of “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.
Broun referred to the same speech last fall, in a statement a few days after Obama’s election, when he warned direly, “We may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism. … History shows that ‘civilian national security forces’ bode ill for citizens.”
“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun’s statement continued. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”
An Obama spokesman explained at the time that the candidate had simply been endorsing the creation of a civilian corps to handle postwar reconstruction effects.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The flap has been watched with particular interest inside the State Department, which already is building a civilian corps similar to the one Obama described in a campaign speech. The Civilian Response Corps, as it is called, was launched two years ago by the Bush administration, after a bipartisan vote by Congress and the urging of Republicans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
Broun, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2007 by less than 400 votes, has recently taken other high-profile positions. In May, he raised a firestorm by proposing that 2010 be declared “The Year of the Bible.” In June, he voted against climate change legislation, calling global warming a “hoax … perpetrated out of the scientific community.”
At this week’s meeting, Brown described health care reform as yet another attempt to control peoples lives and suggests that health care costs could be brought down by repealing consumer protections and enacting tax credits for doctors to take on charity cases.
By Muriel Kane
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) believes that President Obama is bent on turning the United States into a totalitarian state and already has all the tools he needs for the purpose.
“He has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government,” Broun told a meeting of local Georgia Republicans on Wednesday, citing the creation of a private army, a ban on gun ownership, and complete control of the press.
The threat of Democratic Party totalitarianism appears to be an issue very close to Broun’s heart. Last month, he described President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as “a socialistic elite” and responded to a question about swine flu preparations by warning, “They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over.”
Broun bases his claim that Obama intends to set up a private army on a speech during last year’s presidential campaign in which the then-candidate called for the establishment of “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.
Broun referred to the same speech last fall, in a statement a few days after Obama’s election, when he warned direly, “We may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism. … History shows that ‘civilian national security forces’ bode ill for citizens.”
“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun’s statement continued. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”
An Obama spokesman explained at the time that the candidate had simply been endorsing the creation of a civilian corps to handle postwar reconstruction effects.
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The flap has been watched with particular interest inside the State Department, which already is building a civilian corps similar to the one Obama described in a campaign speech. The Civilian Response Corps, as it is called, was launched two years ago by the Bush administration, after a bipartisan vote by Congress and the urging of Republicans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
Broun, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 2007 by less than 400 votes, has recently taken other high-profile positions. In May, he raised a firestorm by proposing that 2010 be declared “The Year of the Bible.” In June, he voted against climate change legislation, calling global warming a “hoax … perpetrated out of the scientific community.”
At this week’s meeting, Brown described health care reform as yet another attempt to control peoples lives and suggests that health care costs could be brought down by repealing consumer protections and enacting tax credits for doctors to take on charity cases.
By Muriel Kane
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Liberal Lies About National Health Care: Third in a Series
(Commemorative Plates On Sale Now!)
by Ann Coulter
(9) If you like Medicare, you'll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare's benefits to everyone.
Hey -- I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff's investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a "Ponzi scheme." These always seem to run fabulously well -- until the money runs out.
Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.
Moreover, Medicare payments aren't enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That's why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.
National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.
Obviously, therefore, it's preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you're designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?
It doesn't work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An "all-penthouse" building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.
(10) National health care won't cover illegal aliens -- as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.
Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn't "designed" to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the "Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009," was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)
But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can't even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?
And by the way -- as with the abortion exclusion -- the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.
Still not convinced? Day after day, The New York Times has been neurotically asserting that national health care won't cover illegal aliens (without ever explaining how precisely it will exclude illegal aliens).
So far, just this week, these Kim Jong Il-style pronouncements have appeared in the Treason Times:
-- "Illegal immigrants will be covered. (Myth)" -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Myth vs. Fact vs. Other," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2009
-- "(Sen. Jim DeMint) fueled speculation that a health care overhaul would cover illegal immigrants, although specific language says it would not." -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of It," The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2009
-- "'Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.' ... The falsehoods include (that italic statement)." -- Michael Mason, "Vetting Claims in a Memo," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009
-- "But that would not help illegal immigrants. Contrary to some reports, they would not be eligible for any new health coverage under any of the health overhaul plans circulating in Congress." -- Duff Wilson, "Race, Ethnicity and Care," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009
The last time the Times engaged in such frantic perseveration about a subject was when the paper was repeatedly insisting that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong had a solid case against the Duke lacrosse players.
By August 2006, every single person in the United States, including the stripper, knew the stripper's claim of "gang rape" was a lie. That was when Duff Wilson -- quoted above -- co-wrote the Times' infamous cover story on the Duke case, titled: "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers." No answers!
(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled "public option" (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an "option" to pay for or not.
Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."
It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.
Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.
by Ann Coulter
by Ann Coulter
(9) If you like Medicare, you'll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare's benefits to everyone.
Hey -- I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff's investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a "Ponzi scheme." These always seem to run fabulously well -- until the money runs out.
Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.
Moreover, Medicare payments aren't enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That's why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.
National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.
Obviously, therefore, it's preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you're designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?
It doesn't work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An "all-penthouse" building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.
(10) National health care won't cover illegal aliens -- as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.
Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn't "designed" to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the "Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009," was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)
But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can't even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?
And by the way -- as with the abortion exclusion -- the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.
Still not convinced? Day after day, The New York Times has been neurotically asserting that national health care won't cover illegal aliens (without ever explaining how precisely it will exclude illegal aliens).
So far, just this week, these Kim Jong Il-style pronouncements have appeared in the Treason Times:
-- "Illegal immigrants will be covered. (Myth)" -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Myth vs. Fact vs. Other," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2009
-- "(Sen. Jim DeMint) fueled speculation that a health care overhaul would cover illegal immigrants, although specific language says it would not." -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of It," The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2009
-- "'Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.' ... The falsehoods include (that italic statement)." -- Michael Mason, "Vetting Claims in a Memo," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009
-- "But that would not help illegal immigrants. Contrary to some reports, they would not be eligible for any new health coverage under any of the health overhaul plans circulating in Congress." -- Duff Wilson, "Race, Ethnicity and Care," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009
The last time the Times engaged in such frantic perseveration about a subject was when the paper was repeatedly insisting that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong had a solid case against the Duke lacrosse players.
By August 2006, every single person in the United States, including the stripper, knew the stripper's claim of "gang rape" was a lie. That was when Duff Wilson -- quoted above -- co-wrote the Times' infamous cover story on the Duke case, titled: "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers." No answers!
(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled "public option" (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an "option" to pay for or not.
Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."
It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.
Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.
by Ann Coulter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
