Crossposted from Flopping Aces

If you are an opponent to the current health care reform proposals under consideration, this is how some on the left view you:

View at EasyCaptures.com

“THE HEIRS OF, YES: BIN LADEN “

The striking thing to remember is that this descriptor was not posted on DU or Kos or Firedoglake or some of the other fringe sites.

This was posted on mybarackobama.com, Obama’s very own Organizing for America website.

These are classic Alinsky tactics that we are seeing played out before us over and over and over again.

The best, most imaginative writers in Hollywood would not be able to make this stuff up.

Screen shots of the information in question are below the fold, you know, just in case the pages go down the memory hole or something.

Zoomed in version:

View at EasyCaptures.com

Entire web page:

View at EasyCaptures.com

also:

Former V.P. Cheney on Fox News Sunday

An excellent interview with Chris Wallace from Cheney’s home in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. A reminder about what a solid, no nonsense V.P we used to have. Quite a contrast with the bumbling blowhard Biden who currently occupies that office!

Notice how Chris Wallace asks more tough questions of Cheney than the media ever asks of B. Hussein Obama?

Finally:

Democrats Corrupting September 11th Anniversary with Political Agenda

Similar to the classless act at the Kennedy funeral which had a prayer to the Lord for government run health care!

Obama has declared that September 11th from now on shall be known as a National Day of Service and Remembrance. Not a bad idea if you are honoring the firemen, police officers and the passengers on Flight 93 who gave their lives trying to save Americans.

But…. like the Kennedy funeral which couldn’t help but use a religious moment to support a partisan political agenda, Obama’s idea of service and remembrance is a bit different from that of ordinary Americans.

This editorial in the New York Daily News puts it well:

The Obama administration supports creating clean energy jobs in cities through a campaign called Green the Block, started by the groups Green For All and the Hip Hop Caucus. After cabinet officials met with leaders of the organizations in the West Wing, aides posted a video and a statement on the White House blog.

Van Jones, an Obama environmental adviser, said 9/11 would be an opportunity to “connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America.”

And the Rev. Lennox Yearwood, head of the Hip Hop Caucus said:

“The first milestone for Green the Block will be on our National Day of Service, Sept. 11, 2009, where we will organize Green the Block service events around the country in coordination with the President’s initiative, United We Serve.”

No. Wrong. Entirely wrong.
(more…)

Charlie Rangel wins the personal lottery.

When normal people happen to “find” their own money, it might mean a twenty left in a winter coat, or discovering change beneath the sofa cushions. But if you’re Charlie Rangel, it means doubling your net worth.

Earlier this month the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee “amended” his 2007 financial disclosure form—to the tune of more than a half-million dollars in previously unreported assets and income. That number may be as high as $780,000, because Congress’s ethics rules only require the Members to report their finances within broad ranges. This voyage of personal financial discovery brings Mr. Rangel’s net worth for 2007 to somewhere between $1.028 million and $2.495 million, while his previous statement came in at $516,015 and $1.316 million.

When you’re a powerful Congressman and working diligently to increase tax rates to pay for President Obama’s health-care plan, we suppose it’s easy to lose track of one of your checking accounts. That would be the one at the federal credit union with a balance somewhere between $250,001 and maybe as high as $500,000. And when you’re crunched for time and pulling together bills to pass in a rush, we guess, too, that you might overlook several other investment accounts, even if some of them are sizable, such as the ones Mr. Rangel missed at JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock.

Oh, and those vacant properties in Glassboro, in southern Jersey? Everybody in Manhattan tries not to think much about New Jersey, so those lots and their as-much-as-$15,000 value must also have slipped down the memory hole. (The New York Post reported yesterday that Mr. Rangel failed to pay property taxes for two of the lots, according to the county clerk’s office.)

The Chairman probably isn’t doing a lot of dining at KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell or Long John Silver’s, either, which may explain why he didn’t disclose the $1,001 to $15,000 in stock he owns in Yum Brands, the conglomerate that runs those chain restaurants. Compared to his undisclosed portfolio stake in PepsiCo—$15,001 to $50,000—that’s practically a rounding error.

All lawmakers amend their financial reports from time to time, though rarely are the errors this extensive. Via email, a Rangel spokesman declined to offer details about how the errors occurred, noting that “Once the Ethics Committee completes its work, then we can answer questions in more detail.” He added that Mr. Rangel is now “confident that his records have been subjected to an exhaustive and complete review, and that the amendments accurately reflect his financial interests.”

Among other issues, Mr. Rangel is currently under investigation regarding his use of four rent-stabilized apartments at New York City’s tony Lenox Terrace and soliciting donations with his official letterhead for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which was itself built with a $1.9 million earmark. Yet another part of the probe is his failure to report $75,000 in income from a rental villa at the beachfront Punta Cana Yacht Club, in the Dominican Republic.
(more…)

By Brujo Blanco

There have been rumblings on the internet of censorship to be implemented by the president and his minions. The president has already demonstrated that he wants to have a controlled media. In fact much of MSM is in his pocket. They do his bidding and they are under his control. In looking at some of his latest appointments he has put people in place that are far far left and are totalitarians.

The internet is a very effective tool for conservatives. Conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh may be frozen out of talk radio by the alleged Fairness Doctrine. The current government plans on taking them down with censorship and possible confiscatory fines for not allowing another point of view to be heard.

The internet is not a serious enemy of anyone who is out to deprive us of our rights. One can get in front of a computer screen and look up anything from worms to space science. More and more people are becoming knowledgeable. More and more people read such things as the proposed Healthcare Reform and we have seen the awakening of a group once known as the silent majority. Politicians who thought they were invincible are now being confronted for lying to the American people. In the old days if one wanted to review a proposed law one had to jump through hoops to do so. Now we just peck the keys and we are reading a bill or a proposed bill.

This is exactly what I just did. I read a bill which is supposed to be the “Cyberseurity Act of 2009.” Sounds like a real neat title for a bill. I read the proposed bill and I see things in the bill that made me seriously concerned regarding the current free flow of information. In summation it gives the President the authority to shut down portions of the internet in the case of an emergency. This is apparently so he can protect us against a cyber attack I suppose. When I read this bill the first thing that popped out and smacked me in the face was the broad nature of the bill. The bill speaks of a “cyber Katrina” for which we are not prepared. This is another government money hole is another problem.

The duties of the president in the bill is that within one year he will be required to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy. He will be required to establish a long term vision of the nation’s cybersecurity future. This vision shall include the participation of the private sector. To me this means he will have something to say about the private use of the internet. The real kicker that we need be concerned with is that the president under this law can declare a cybersecurity emergency and can order the limitation or shutdown of internet traffic. The president shall also be in a position to direct periodic mapping of Federal government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks. The President shall also have the authority to order the disconnection of any federal critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security.
(more…)

By Dick Morris

As if Obama’s health care proposals were not flawed enough, CBS News reports a previously unnoticed provision of the bill which makes a shambles of any privacy surrounding your federal tax returns. Under the House bill, the IRS is required to make available to the new government Health Choices Commissioner” established by the legislation and to each state health program all of your personal tax information.

In a blog, CBSNews’ Declan McCullagh reports that “Section 431 (a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted grow income, the number of dependents, and ‘other information as is prescribed by’ regulation” to the “new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs.”

And, McCullagh also reports that, under Section 1801(a) “the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a ‘low-income prescription drug subsidy’ but has not applied for it.”

So the Health Choices Commissioner and anyone in his office, the fifty state health programs and their staffs, and the vast Social Security Administration will all now have access to your personal tax information.

It might as well be published in the newspapers.

The rationale for providing this confidential tax information to all these people is not only to check on the eligibility of those who are seeking federal subsidy – a possibly appropriate use of it – but, also, to those who have not applied but might be eligible. This later20provision essentially authorizes the Social Security Administration to seek and obtain anyone’s income tax information under the guise of determining if they should have applied for a subsidy.

In his blog, McCullagh quotes Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation as saying “How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your record? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest, and most malcontented federal employee.” And not just your health records, your financial records too!
(more…)

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove. That’s the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President and it gives Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That matches the lowest total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Check out the featured video on the home page for a great rebuttal to a viral Youtube video going around called “Why We Need Government-Run Universal Socialized Health Insurance”….watch the rebuttal and send it to friends and family.

In the meantime here’s another reminder of the real world from those who live in a Socialized medicine world:

also:

Lockerbie Bomber Was Released For Oil

Imagine how the families of those 240 dead feel now?

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

Releasing this POS for oil…..wonderful.

also:

Democrats: Never Let a Funeral Service go to Waste

Unbelievable.

I watched it three times and still cannot believe what I saw and heard.

Roll the tape:

You would think that after the Paul Wellstone memorial went so far off the tracks that they would have learned. Seems that isn’t so. Rush said last week that the services for Uncle Teddy would be a spectacle to behold because the Democrats cannot help themselves.

Once again, Rush was right.

As Allah at Hot Air said:

Enter this poor little boy, charged with politicizing a prayer because the gutless pols around him didn’t have the guts to do it themselves.

Exit question: Anyone have any young’uns at home they’d be willing to volunteer to lead prayers at the next big GOP funeral? We might as well make use of the camera time while we have it. “Dear god, please grant us the strength to privatize social security and construct a robust missile defense shield. We pray to the Lord.”

Here’s a news flash for the Democrats: The cold, dead corpse of a Democrat Senator doesn’t transform a bad idea into a good one.

In light of all of the things that have been said and done over the course of the last few days, I’m beginning to have second thoughts about something. Perhaps the Democrats should rename their health care proposal after the newly deceased Senator Kennedy. I’m beginning to think that is a great idea after all.

They should rename it after Senator Kennedy.

Then they can do the same thing he did with Mary Jo Kopechne….do nothing and watch it die.

Finally:

Obama “kisses off Eastern Europe” – killing missile defense plans

RUMOR MILL (as of yet unconfirmed since the report has not been made public yet): Per Investor’s Business Daily Friday, there’s a report going around that the O’admin has decided to renege on building a missile defense system in Europe to protect Poland and the Czech Republic. If it’s true, Obama has… once more… indicated to our allies that Obama’s “remade America” is there not to protect them, but to betray them.

The U.S. has abandoned plans to install a missile defense system in Europe, according to a report. If true, this is a major strategic error that will have serious consequences for our allies in Europe and for us.

Quoting a U.S. source, the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza says the Obama administration has decided against building a missile shield to protect Poland and the Czech Republic. The reason? Russian opposition.

Now, if we want to build a defense system for friends in Europe, we’ll have to place it in the Balkans, Israel or somewhere else. That is, if Russia approves.

This is a stark reversal of past policy and reneges on promises made by the current administration. Worse, it shows weakness. We got into a staredown with the Russian bear and we blinked.

Ironically, it was the very same day I did a little noticed post about Obama’s growing impotence with our western allies, and the battle against global jihad by citing three incidents:

(more…)

By Dick Morris

After vowing not to become involved in recriminations over the Bush anti-terror policies, President Obama has allowed his Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to dig up all the dirt he can find on the CIA and the anti-terror investigators whose aggressive questioning saved us from countless attacks.

Why the switch? Because Obama needs to do something to appease the left that elected him. After refusing to pull out of Iraq and deciding to follow the Bush timetable for withdrawing and staying in Afghanistan and likely having to beef up our presence there, liberals might be wondering why they elected Obama. After all, his opposition to the war in Iraq and his criticism of the Bush anti-terror policies were the hallmarks of his campaign in 2008.

And, on the domestic front, Obama likely realizes that he may have to pull in his horns on health care and accept some sort of compromise which may not endear him to his constituency.

So he has decided to throw a few CIA interrogators to the wolves.

The report that Holder released to accompany his decision to name a special prosecutor itself showed the trivial nature of the charges against these patriotic anti-terror investigators. Among the allegations prominently featured in the report is that the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole was scrubbed with a rough brush in the bath so as to cause him pain. Our heartless interrogators also threatened that they could bring in his family and parents for questioning. How do these “tortures” compare with the deaths of more than a dozen American sailors roasted to death in flames or drowned in the sea?

The CIA report, also released on Monday, demonstrates, within the limits that secrecy allows, how these very interrogations thwarted serious terrorist plots against our country.

Would the public agree that if we had bin Laden in custody that it would be wrong to scrub him with a harsh brush? Or to threaten to involve his family? Or to press his carotid artery until he was on the verge of passing out? If such techniques could have averted the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9-11, would we not all have sanctioned them?
(more…)

By Barry Rubin

One of Israel’s highest priorities in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) is recognition by the PA and Arab states as a “Jewish state.” The purpose of this demand is to ensure a lasting peace with Israel as it exists rather than some formal declaration which would thereafter be subverted in every possible way.

[For Israel's peace plan go here; for a summary of the two sides' negotiating positions, go here]

Remember, after all, that the Middle East is full of countries which, when you recognize them, you accept their self-definition. Here are some of the names of countries which you accept when you recognize them: The Arab Republic of Egypt, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, or even—as in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan or Saudi Arabia—designating them as being under the rule of a single family.

The Palestinian Authority’s constitution for a Palestinian state—which will probably have the word “Arab” and possibly “Islamic” in its name—states that country is Arab in nationality and that the official religion is Islam.

But the most important reason is to counter various tricks like that of the “Right of Return,” which is based on a false reading of a single non-binding UN document that the Palestinians and Arabs rejected more than fifty years ago. Note that this demand—that all Palestinians who ever lived in what is now Israel or are descendants of such people—can come and live in Israel. Naturally, there first goal would be to destroy that country and the result would be horrible violence, bloodshed, and instability.

Don’t believe anyone who tells you this isn’t a serious demand on the PA’s part or that they will—as they tell credible people in private—not really implement it once Israel promises to let them do it. It is an absolutely central demand and if any Palestinian leader dared give it up publicly his life span—politically at least—would be very limited.
(more…)

by James

Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There’s nothing that the government can do to me if I’ve broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a grand dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.

“Sorry about that,” said the President. “Andrew is very hungry.”

“I don’t appreciate…” I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. “Of course,” I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.

“And his brother Eric is very thirsty,” said the President.

I didn’t say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don’t want to seem unkind. My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

“Eric’s children are also quite hungry.”

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

“And their grandmother can’t stand for long.”
(more…)

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Officer Wesley Cheeks Jr. says this is no longer America and the First Amendment no longer applies. Unfrakkin’believable!

Hat tip Caleb Howe

also:

G.E. World’s 6th Largest Corporation Unmasked as Obama Front Group

Not only do they profit billions from Obama’s policies, they shut out dissenting voices on their television networks!

Obama and the Democrats love to slam Fox News for presenting opposing points of view. So, it’s no surprise that Obama prefers to give interviews to NBC which he feels is more sympathetic to his cause. NBC has been in the tank for Obama from the beginning.

Further proof of NBC’s favoritism came this week when the network rejected the following ad from the League of American Voters:

The ad NBC and Obama don’t want you to see!

Why? Follow the Money!
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

“You can’t avoid these questions,” Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. “We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a ‘God committee’ to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions.”

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: “Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

Dr Emanuel is Rahm Emanuel’s brother & when asked directly by the Washington Press Corps if Dr Emanuel had provided advice on healthcare plans to the Admin, Press Secretary Gibbs repeatedly said yes.

Baby Boomers beware. Social Security has already been cut (last week). In a few years it will give out more than it takes in, and then it will be gone. That means that today’s retiring members of the “Me Generation” will be short on cash, at the end of the line for healthcare, and-if this guy has his way-will be left to die when Alzheimers hits.

also:

Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges Your IRS Tax Data

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy” but has not applied for it.

Finally:

Give Up Medicare Benefits To Make ObamaCare Work….Just A Myth Right?

Check out this arrogant piece of work, Rep. Betsy Markey:

Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation’s health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.
Advertisement

Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.

“There’s going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work,” Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. “But we have to do this because we’re Americans.”

Don’t agree with Socialized Medicine and not willing to give stuff up….well then you are just un-American.

And hey….didn’t Obama say that was a myth?

I’m just saying.

No wonder some people are protesting this woman: (more…)

From Red Maryland

They say never speak ill of the dead. Good advice, but neither should we whitewash those ills. The good and the bad must be weighed when taking the full measure of their lives.

Ted Kennedy, by any measure, led an extraordinary life enduring both triumph and tragedy leaving indelible mark on American political history. There is his place in the Kennedy legacy a story better told elsewhere, his role as the “liberal lion” of the Senate duly earned for his unapologetic liberalism, and Kennedy’s amazing legislative skills, which forged bipartisan consensus on some of the most significant legislation over the last 50 years. Of course, one should not mistake his bipartisan flair for a political virtue, as some of those bipartisan accomplishments—No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D come to mind—are examples of particularly bad legislation. Instead conservatives should look to forgotten pieces of Kennedy’s legislative achievements liberals would rather bury with him.

The one aspect of Kennedy I admire most was his compassion, compassion not as a political ideal but as a personal virtue. From all accounts his compassion crossed ideological boundaries. Kennedy offered solace and advice to the late conservative columnist Robert Novak when he learned of Novak’s similar malignancy. There was a genuine sincerity to his compassion that endeared him to friend and foe alike.

Kennedy’s personal failings were well known, but to his credit he righted himself and learned from those failings to make himself a better man. However, as Prof. Vatz mentioned earlier, his explanation and self serving “apology” for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick remain unsatisfactory.

For all the progressive hagiography surrounding the “liberal lion” we cannot forget Kennedy was a ruthless politician—as were his brothers. Politics aint bean bag as they say, but his speech on the Senate floor vilifying Robert Bork was beyond the pale:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.

The “liberal lion” was not above pulling petty political tricks either. Rick Snider a sports columnist for the Washington Examiner experienced this first hand:

I crossed paths once with Kennedy where I learned a valuable lesson about covering politicians — nothing is as it appears. I was a college sophomore working for the school paper when word came that Kennedy would appear on campus for a campaign stop in his 1980 bid for president. The staff huddled for hours working on one question we expected to ask. Instead, Kennedy took three questions from people so obviously planted in the crowd that even a 19-year-old like myself walked away knowing the whole thing was a setup.

Neither was Kennedy immune from the hypocrisy of liberal politics. There is gaping chasm between his rhetoric and his actions. While railing against tax breaks for “big oil”, Kennedy ensured tax exemptions for oil companies owned by his family. An ardent supporter of the estate tax, Kennedy created a vast web of trusts and foundations to shield his family’s wealth from the IRS.

There is also another ugly chapter in the Kennedy epoch that should outstrip Chappaquiddick, if only the mainstream media bothered to notice. Kennedy, a sitting US Senator actively pursued collaboration with the Soviet Union to undermine Ronald Reagan’s defense policy during the Cold War, and influence the 1984 election. The proof of this comes in the form of a memo from KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov to Andropov.

In 1983 Kennedy conveyed an offer to Soviet General Secretary, Yuri Andropov through his law school chum and confident John Tunney. Kennedy’s offer was to help the Soviets burnish their image in American public opinion to ostensibly ease tensions during a particularly warm period of the Cold War. Kennedy was concerned about the deteriorating US-Soviet relationship. The cause of the decline, in Kennedy’s opinion, was not Soviet actions, but rather with Ronald Reagan’s “belligerence.” Kennedy cited in particular, Reagan’s placement of Pershing missiles in Europe and the MX missile and SDI programs. From the memo:

According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvements of the economy:inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”
Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that may bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop. The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth.

(more…)

From Powerline

Ronald Radosh explores the case of Van Jones. Jones is Obama’s green jobs “czar” (his formal title is Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality). As green jobs “czar,” Jones’s responsibility is to coordinate the stimulus spending to assure that a hefty portion of it goes to projects that promote green energy.

In his relatively recent past Jones was a Marxist revolutionary. From 1992 until 2002, Jones was a member of a radical communist group that was dedicated to “organizing a revolutionary movement in America.” Does Jones remain a Marxist revolutionary today?

The White House has declined to provide a straight answer to the question. We will accordingly assume that, in Jones’s case, “commissar” would be more like it.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Jones is not a “czar,” but rather an “adviser.” The Wall Street Journal distinguished between the job titles here in the case of Jones. Does the title of Obama administration “czar” have formal legal contours? The Chicago Tribune asks: how many czars are there? In any event, I think commissar is the more appropriate honorific, and Victor Davis Hanson makes the case that the Marxist spirit pervades the White House.

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’
Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP. Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession. In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.
(more…)

Liberal columnists decrying the Obama administration’s supposed lack of partisan fortitude and eagerness for a nasty fight for health care seem oddly detached from reality. The opposition to Obamacare would have gone nowhere had the president offered a concise plan, had his team kept repeating four or five logical and easily understandable talking points, and had he prepared a few pat answers to the more controversial elements of the plan, from the public option to so-called “end of life” panels to treatment of illegal aliens and the real cost.

Instead, Obama and his advisers, in lazy fashion, outsourced the plan to the partisan left-wingers of the Democratic party who are key House chairs. They in turn offered up a 1,000-page legalese mess, which the administration’s key players never read, and which Obama arrogantly thought he could wing through in a few weeks with his “hope and change” “trust me” cadences.

Once a few citizens at town halls started to call them on it, it quickly became clear not just that Obama’s health-care reform was an effort to emulate in the long run the failed Canadian system, but far more importantly, that none of its defenders were able to explain, much less defend, the plan.

Now the problem is not just that health care is going down, but that in the process the administration has tarnished the blue-chip Obama brand, and we are in a sort of emperor-has-no-clothes moment. Take away the rhetoric and charisma, and this same absence of preparation, professional research, and focused public defense seems to apply to almost everything Obama has offered, from more stimulus and more deficit spending to cash for clunkers and cap and trade.

The likes of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and Nancy Pelosi, all according to their stations, demagogued the Iraq War and unfairly tarred Bush as some sort of satanic figure. But they succeeded, primarily because the Bush administration in response could not articulate what the aims in Iraq were, why they were worth the likely costs, and why decisions like disbanding the Iraqi army, at first pulling back from Fallujah, giving a reprieve to Sadr, etc. were mistakes and would not be repeated. The problem was not that Bush and Co. did not fight back sufficiently, but rather that they did not explain adequately to the American people why the people’s growing doubts about winning in Iraq were mistaken.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

The MSM is slowly coming to grips that ObamaCare is something that needs to be trashed:

NO ONE LIKES to be the bearer of bad news — especially when it could threaten your multibillion-dollar health-care reform bill. And so the Obama administration did not exactly rush to publish yesterday’s required mid-session update to its federal budget estimates of last February. Still, once the numbers finally emerged in the dog days of August, they retained the power to stun: Instead of a cumulative $7.1 trillion deficit over the next decade, the White House now projects a $9 trillion deficit. These figures imply average annual budget deficits greater than 4 percent of gross domestic product through fiscal 2019, a rate of debt accumulation faster than projected GDP growth. This is not a sustainable fiscal path.

The extra $1.9 trillion in red ink mainly reflects the Office of Management and Budget’s adoption of more realistic — that is, more pessimistic — estimates of economic growth and unemployment. White House officials protest that their original, rosier numbers made sense at the time; actually, plenty of forecasters, including those at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, made more accurate calls. This situation was foreseeable and should have been acknowledged earlier.

~~~

The new deficit numbers make it even more urgent that any health-care reform not only be fully paid for and certifiably budget-neutral in the eyes of independent analysts such as the CBO but also promise meaningful reductions in the cost growth of health care. So far, none of the plans under discussion measure up. The time is fast approaching for the president and Congress to face that reality, too.

~~~

Still, the Bush administration’s irresponsibility notwithstanding, it is time to stop crying “we inherited it.” …

Of course they use economic reasons to tell Obama to shove it, not the proposed Socialism, but the economy is something people can wrap their head around. Under Bush and a Republican Congress the deficit got up to 428 billion. Democrats came in, Obama came in, and now its over 1 trillion+ and they want to talk about 9 trillion!

Of course this is before the Chappaquiddick killer died…maybe the WaPo would of changed course and pushed for ObamaCare….but I doubt it. This kind of debt is just not sustainable and would ruin this country.

More here.

also:

Obama’s New FCC “Diversity” Chief Believes Government Should Control All Media

Have you met our newly appointed, Obama stamp approved, “Diversity” Czar for the FCC?

No?

Well…check him out.

Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.

Lloyd expressed his regulatory call to arms in his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” (University of Illinois Press).

In the book, Lloyd also said that public broadcasting should be funded through new license fees charged to the nation’s private radio and television broadcasters, and that new regulatory fees should be used to fund eight new regional FCC offices.

These offices would be responsible for monitoring political advertising and commentary, children’s educational programs, number of commercials, and content ratings of the programs.

Frequently referencing one of his heroes, left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, Lloyd claims in his book that the history of American communications policy has been one of continued corporate control of every form of communication from the telegraph to the Internet.

~~~

Government, Lloyd said in his book, is the “only” institution that can manage the communications of the public, arguing that Washington must “ensure” that everyone has an equal ability to communicate.

“The American republic requires the active deliberation of a diverse citizenry, and this, I argue, can be ensured only by our government,” he says. “Put another way, providing for the equal capability of citizens to participate effectively in democratic deliberation is our collective responsibility.”

~~~

With Alinsky as the political guide, Lloyd outlines nine “lessons” that people can draw on when trying to combat international businesses.

~~~

To combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, Lloyd calls for a “confrontational movement” to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in.

“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”

To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

“We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign,” wrote Lloyd, “that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent, the commercial broadcasters ….”

“We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork,” wrote Lloyd. “From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance.”

Oh, it get’s better:

Lloyd proposes six initial goals for wresting control of communications from the corporate interests he claims control it. As his book details:

1. “End the federal subsidy of commercial media, particularly cable and broadcast television. Broadcasters should pay for the great privileges of a federally protected license to operate a business by using the publicly owned [radio or television] spectrum.”

2. “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level. The CPB board should be elected, [with] eight members representing eight regions of the country (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Plains States, Southwest, Mountain States, and the Pacific Coast) and a chairman appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” said Lloyd.

“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. … Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs. … Spectrum allocations should be established that create clear preferences for public broadcasters ensuring that regional, local, and neighborhood communities are well served,” he added.

3. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies. The FCC should be staffed at regional offices, matching those CPB regions, at levels sufficient to monitor and enforce communication regulation.

“Clear federal regulations over commercial broadcast and cable programs regarding political advertising and commentary, educational programming for children, the number of commercials, ratings information about programs before they are broadcast, and the accessibility of services to the disabled should be established and widely promoted.”

4. “Universal service support provided by all commercial telecommunications providers (whether they are classified as information services or not) to fund access to advanced telecommunications services should be expanded to all nonprofit organizations, including higher-level academic and vocational schools, community centers, and 501(c) (3) organizations unaffiliated with either business or government.”

5. “Postal subsidies should be fully restored to small independent nonprofits presses. Postal subsidies should be reduced for commercial and business operations. The postal service should be returned to congressional control with the central mission of ensuring that all Americans have access to the post.”

6. “Public secondary schools should be required to include civics and media literacy as part of their core curriculum. Testing on civic, media, and computer literacy should be required and national standards set.”

For those who think any or all of these recommendations might infringe on the free speech rights of broadcasters, Lloyd says his concern is not the “exaggerated” concerns over the First Amendment.

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration.

And just today Glenn Beck aired some footage of Lloyd speaking about the great change that happened in Venezuela with the dictator Chavez coming to power:

In Venezuela, with Chavez, really a incredible revolution. A dramatic revolution. To begin to put into place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media rebelled, work frankly with folks here in the US government, worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution and Chavez started to take the media very seriously in this country.

Get that? The “property owners” didn’t want a dictator, didn’t want Communism, and that’s bad. Our government even helped them fight against Communism but Chavez, Lloyd’s hero, came back fighting and took over the media…..which is a good thing to our new FCC czar.

He is completely opposed to any privately owned communications.

Read that again.

He want’s a government takeover of our media!

Here’s Glenn with Seton Motley:

Where is the MSM? Why are they not freaking out? Hell, this guy just said that freedom of speech is “exaggerated.”

But the left and the MSM hide.

Finally:

Obama Demands Press Respect His Girl’s Privacy

Meanwhile, he uses them like props whenever it is convenient!

President urges media shutterbugs to respect daughters’ privacy
By Susan Milligan
Boston Globe
August 24, 2009

…the real message to those hoping to cover the president’s vacation is: really, we wish you wouldn’t.

Unlike recent presidents, Obama has two young children, and the first couple is adamant that the girls be left alone. That means no approaching, cameras in tow, when Sasha and Malia are trying to get ice cream, or perhaps ride on the island’s famed carousel.

Aside from wishing a good time for all, in fact, the president had one clear message yesterday for reporters, said Bill Burton, the deputy White House press secretary: “The first family would very much appreciate if you respect the privacy of the girls while they’re out here on vacation.’’

Props!

(more…)

From Red Maryland

–Richard E. Vatz

When newspapers have significant warning of an icon’s death, you can bet that the next day the obituaries will be of a small book’s length, and so it was in The Washington Post and The New York Times today, pursuant to the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who at 77 succumbed to brain cancer.

If I am known for one thing in my field of rhetoric, it is the casting of the relationship between rhetoric and situations in this way: rhetoric determines what we see as relevant aspects of situations and what they mean. More specific, in the current case, it is the argument that a large part of rhetorical study is the struggle to make certain facts salient and to diminish the salience of other facts.

There is so much in Sen. Kennedy’s full life. It is a “life fully spent,” even if arguably not overwhelmingly “well spent.” I shall not write a full account here, but any such essay would have to address his unapologetic liberalism — strewn with liberal legislation, some of which was crafted with nominally conservative senators – his surely unanimously acclaimed Herculean work ethic, his integrity in being good to his word with his fellow senators, and his own great contribution to eulogistic rhetoric in his extraordinarily memorable speech commemorating the death of his brother, Robert Kennedy, about which I have written previously.

There are scandals, including his being cashiered from Harvard, where, as The New York Times describes, Kennedy “persuaded another student to take his Spanish examination…” And there were other ethical lapses, none of which is sufficiently disqualifying to citing his personal and occupational accomplishments.

But then there is this: the Chappaquiddick tragedy. On July 18, 1969, Sen. Kennedy, as The Washington Post states in today’s lengthy article, “…attended a small get-together of friends and Robert Kennedy campaign workers on Chappaquiddick, a narrow island off Martha’s Vineyard. Late that night, the car he was driving ran off a narrow wooden bridge and plunged into a tidal pool. His only passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, one of the ‘boiler room girls’ in Robert Kennedy’s 1968 campaign, drowned. Kennedy, who failed to report the incident to police for about nine hours, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of leaving the scene of an accident. He received a two-month suspended sentence and lost his driver’s license for a year. In a televised speech on July 25, six days after Kopechne’s death, Kennedy confessed to being so addled by the accident that he was not thinking straight. ‘I was overcome, I’m frank to say, by a jumble of emotions: grief, fear, doubt, exhaustion, panic, confusion and shock,’ he said.”

The only argument I have with that description is the use of the word “confessed.” Sen. Kennedy did not confess that he was not thinking straight; he claimed as exculpatory evidence that his being “addled” accounts for his not reporting the incident to police – for nine hours.

His dishonest (“nor was I driving under the influence of liquor”), unconvincing, self-ennobling (“I made immediate and repeated efforts to save Mary Jo”) and at times self-pitying (referring to his wondering if there were a “curse” that stalked the Kennedys) and disingenuous(“I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions”) description of his efforts to save Mary Jo Kopechne in a speech to the people of Massachusetts was insulting to his audience, many of whom re-elected him handily to the Senate following the accident.
(more…)

By Regina Sztajer

President Barack Obama began his presidency sitting on top of the world so he thought. But he forget the old saying, “don’t bight the hand that feeds you.” The American elected him and he started to bight them in the back. Change was his motto, that change was not to be socialism. Pork was off his diet but he and his Democratic comrades spent like crazy. The government started taking over the banks, auto industry and largest companies. Bills were passed increasing our debt into the trillions. Did the legislature or the president read these huge bills. No of course not!

Obama wants a Health Care bill passed that will without a doubt bankrupt America. His approval rating has dropped and this summer has seen tea parties and town hall meetings that have turned out thousands of citizens in protest. The protestors have been called mobs and people have been bullied into thinking they are inferior. They don’t want Obama’s health care and what they do want is their liberty and freedom that he and his cronies are stealing.

The messianic appeal of Obama has tarnished and his unrealistic ideals have changed the mood of the American people. Hope! Change! and Audacity! have been forgotten and replaced with despair for the unemployed. The country is being held prisoner by a financial panic. Obama really believed we gave him a blank check to spend at will. Rather than stabilizing the nation financially he has turned it toward socialism on it’s way to total Communism. Who are these Czars he appointed? How much are they being paid and what decisions are they fostering on us. According to commentator Glen Bell on Fox News Obama and some of these Czar’s may be asociated with organizations that have Communist leanings. That is scary, especially when we realize he has hit lists and wants us to snitch on friends, fellow workers and neighbors.

People still can’t sell their homes and the building industry is at an almost standstill. The administration turns a blind eye and just continues to want to spend and eventually tax us to oblivion. He’s the one who needs a lecture on what is the right direction to take America and he should take in what the American people are saying. I am a senior citizen and a grandma and I am sickened over the idea that the government would tell me if I have the right to live. Imagine ,Baa even wanted to take health care away from our veterans and hands out a booklet telling them how best to kill themselves rather than being a burden on us.

Speaking about veterans, Obama and his administration are incapable of fighting a war on terror. Terrorists are being released here and a notorious terrorist was freed in Scotland, taking the lead from America. Obama is soft on Iran waiting for an invite from them. He has pulled the rug out from our troops in Iraq and left their people vulnerable. He is not a war president and we will continue to lose men in Afghanistan because he doesn’t have the stomach to give the military what it needs to give it a good fight. Ours troops should not be used for cannon fodder because we have a president who is a coward.

What kind of craziness is it to investigate the CIA? They have been keeping us safe for many a years, sometimes sacrificing their very lives. It is shameful for the administration to politicalize our national security! (more…)

Submitted by James

The ACLU has to rank as one of the lowest life forms to inhabit the planet earth. I can’t think of enough adjectives to describe the slimy vermin that takes every opportunity to destroy everything America stands for from religion, to Christmas to memorials honoring the men and women who gave their lives for our country. Sadly, the sacrifice of those gallant men and women gave these worthless s.o.b’s the right to make these attempts to desecrate and destroy the symbols that are America, and belong to America. The ACLU should stand strong under the Obama administration as they both serve everything Communist.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD DAMN THE ACLU.

Some people have asked about the 9/12 Tea Party and transportation. Here you go!

Here’s the website:

http://912dc.org/

There are a couple of people who are organizing buses to DC for Saturday 9/12:

Harford County:

The Bus Trip to the National Tea Party at Washington DC is still on for 9/12! We have filled 6 chartered buses and we are trying to make it 10! Tell your friends and let’s make this a huge event!

More information about the event in DC can be found at www.912dc.org and Tony Passaro is the contact person for this. His email is Passaro.Tony@gmail.com

Baltimore County:

David Wallace – ‘Restore America’s Mission’- has organized buses to depart from several sites around Baltimore

Pikesville Hilton 7:00 am— Rt. 97 & 32 7:15am —-MD 152 and I 95 Park and Ride 7:00am
(more…)