No more news from ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN MSNBC,CNBC - only from Fox! My extended family are all on board with this and also my sons in laws. We are slowly spreading out until we get our country back.
By the way no more Letterman and any of the scummy Hollywood types who try to push their hate America crap on us.
The Dept Of Defense briefed the president this morning. They told President Obama that 2 Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq .
To everyone's surprise, all the color drained from Obama's face. Then he collapsed onto his desk, head in his hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears. Finally, he composed himself and asked,
'Just how many is a Brazilian?'
This is not surprising, since he obviously has no understanding of billion or trillion either.
The Un-Aborted Obama
Hello Barry. I’ve decided to write you a few questions in response to the unsolicited emails I keep getting from BarackObama.com. Since most of your form emails concern health care I’ll confine most of my questions to one health-related subject: Abortion.
1. Did you know that about 150 young black people were admitted to Howard University School of Law this year? But, unfortunately, about 1370 black babies were aborted today. How can we effect “social justice” if the health profession kills far more blacks than the legal profession is currently accepting into its ranks?
2. Isn’t abortion sort of like liberalism in a nutshell? It’s just a way of asking others to suffer the consequences of your own bad decisions.
3. Doctors are supposed to save lives and not take them. Shouldn’t abortion doctors then be required to take the hypocritical oath?
4. You been supported by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals throughout your political career. What if I trapped a dog in a cage and dismembered him slowly with a pruning tool I stuck through the bars of the cage? What if I then sucked out the bloody body parts with my Black & Decker power vacuum? Would PETA demand my arrest? Would they succeed? Would this not be eerily similar to what licensed doctors do to babies? Isn’t that more serious than animal abuse? Even more serious than ACORN funding brothels with tax-payer dollars? Is this a procedure we want to nationalize?
5. When a white abortion doctor kills a black baby is it a hate crime?
6. Jesse Jackson was pro-life before he decided to run for president. He switched to the “pro-choice” position because he wanted to be the first black president. This, he thought, would show that America is no longer racist. Jesse still opposes the death penalty because – at least he claims - it is racist. In the American health care system, over 9000 black babies are aborted every week. Has the criminal justice system ever executed 9000 innocent blacks in a single week?
7. A Democrat historian once told me that, during its history, the mostly Democratic KKK lynched almost 5000 blacks. Today, the mostly Democratic pro-choice movement applauds (and even defends as a “right”) the mutilation of over 9000 blacks on a weekly basis. You probably think it is unfair to compare pro-choicers to the KKK. But unfair to whom? Klansmen were never such prolific killers.
8. What would happen if we started shooting unborn babies with guns? Would you then decide to oppose abortion?
9. I was recently told that, as a Christian, I should support your health reform bill. But I would not want to be treated in a universal Canadian-style health care system. So why should I wish my neighbor to be treated the way I do not want to be treated?
10. I just ran into a fellow who was wearing a "Jesus" fish around his neck and an "Obama" hat on his head. That's like wearing a Star of David around your neck and carving a swastika on your forehead. Jesus was the greatest friend of the weak and powerless. Are you not the most powerful opponent of the weakest segment of society, the unborn?
11. Social Security is going bankrupt because large numbers of people born before Roe v. Wade are drawing from the system. But 50 million people who would be paying into the system have been aborted since Roe. Is it fair to say that in the same way Democrats destroy lives they created they also destroy government programs they created?
12. Since abortion kills so many black males, shouldn't we call it "homie-cide"?
I didn’t sign up for your email newsletter but I guess someone did it for me as a joke. And I can’t seem to get off the list no matter how many times I ask to be removed. So, I’ll keep sending questions like these until you start responding with more than just your form email responses. Or maybe I’ll find a way to send them directly to your teleprompter.
Mr. Obama has a philosophy that runs as a common thread between his approaches to everything he touches from the U.S. economy, to national security, and even, yes, foreign policy. What is this important piece of the puzzle? Simple. Though he pays lip service to one of the most basic issues of human nature and how people relate to and interact with each other on a micro or macro scale, his actions actually minimize – or at least, marginalize – a fundamental instinct common to every person, group, community, and nation on the earth.
Self-interest.
The call du jour from the mountaintop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is for all of us to rise above, or in new age parlance “transcend,” mere mortal self-interest. On the domestic level this means that capitalism – a mean, primal, greedy, and materialistic approach to economics that steals from the poor to give to the rich – must be replaced (slowly, but surely) with a more enlightened approach; one that emphasizes social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth.
This is all the rage these days. It may be called “progressive,” but it’s really a barely-if-at-all disguised form of socialism. If it walks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it digests food like a goose, it’s…well.
By Larry Elder
Dear Madame Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
I apologized to President Obama for my "you lie" outburst during his recent speech. The President immediately accepted my apology. Yet you and nearly all members of your party in the House of Representatives demanded that I make yet another apology from the floor of the House. I refused and then received an admonishment by resolution -- passed almost completely down party lines.
Now it's your turn, Madame Speaker. I invite you and others in your party to apologize publicly to former President George W. Bush for vicious, personal and frequently race-based attacks.
"Bush is an incompetent leader," you said of the then-sitting president. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." If a Republican --especially a Southerner -- attacked Obama that way, former President Jimmy Carter would call him or her a racist. Apologize, Madame Speaker.
Sen. Ted Kennedy died never having apologized. Kennedy accused the Bush administration of lying about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War. "Week after week after week," Kennedy said from the Senate floor, "we were told lie after lie after lie." Please check the rules for a posthumous resolution of admonition.
How about an apology from now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? She played the race card. Before a predominately black audience, Clinton said, "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. And you know what I'm talking about."
Imagine attacking Obama's intelligence the way members of your party did to that of President Bush. "I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," said Clinton, referring to the dimwitted icon of Mad magazine. She even used Neuman's catchphrase, "What, me worry?" to describe how Bush handled tough issues.
What about an apology from Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.? Like his colleague, the late senior senator from the Bay State, Kerry also accused Bush of lying. "Their plan," Kerry said on Don Imus' show in 2006, "is lie and die. And that's what they're doing. They lie to America about what's happening on the ground; they lie about why we're there; they lie about what's happening." Kerry, too, questioned Bush's intelligence. As the returns for the 2004 presidential race came in, Kerry said, "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot." Imagine someone in my party -- based on the current standard of "civility" -- saying something like that about President Obama.
What about Democratic Sen. (and then-minority leader) Harry Reid of Nevada? He called Bush a "loser" and a "liar." Reid apologized for the "loser" comment but let stand "liar."
What about Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan? On ABC's "Nightline," he compared the then-GOP-controlled House to "the Duma and the Reichstag" -- referring to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the German Weimar Republic's parliament, which brought Adolf Hitler to power. (Of course, "Bush equals Hitler" posters, swastikas and calls for assassination were commonplace at anti-Bush rallies.)
What about the use of the race card by now-chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Democrat Charlie Rangel of New York? He called President George W. Bush "our Bull Connor." Who was Bull Connor? He was the racist Birmingham, Ala., public safety commissioner who sicced dogs and turned fire hoses on civil rights marchers in the 1960s.
What about the use of the race card against Bush by then-candidate and now-Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri? About the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, she said, "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."
What about Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who also accused Bush of racism in responding to Hurricane Katrina? Incredibly, he offered this conspiracy theory: Bush (SET ITAL) wanted (END ITAL) blacks to leave Louisiana to make it a more solidly Republican red state. Frank called this "ethnic cleansing by inaction."
Neither then-presidential campaign manager Donna Brazile nor her boss, Al Gore, ever apologized for Brazile's assertion that the Republican Party possesses a "white-boy attitude." This means, she explained, "(the GOP) must exclude, denigrate and leave behind."
What about former governor/presidential candidate/Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean? He characterized the contest between Democrats and Republicans as "a struggle of good and evil. And," Dean said, "we're the good." Dean also told a National Public Radio audience, "The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that (Bush) was warned (about the 9/11 attacks) ahead of time by the Saudis."
And finally, what about "the tone" of President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel? In a 2006 Chicago Tribune article, Emanuel succinctly expressed his feelings toward my party. "(Republicans)," he said, "can go f--- themselves."
I await your response.
Sincerely,
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.
Jimmy Carter is 85 years old. Dave Letterman is 62, Nancy Pelosi is 69, Maureen Dowd is 57, and Al Sharpton is 54.
These are the people – and theirs is the generation – who are teaching America’s youth how to be racist in 2009. They are very good instructors.
Instead of discussing Obama’s plans for health care reform, immigration, foreign policy or the economy on their merits (or demerits, as it were), graying liberal finger-pointers have discovered it’s so much easier to simply play the race card.
Following his usual mantra that "to watch me is to love me," Barack Obama appeared on five Sunday interview shows and since that wasn't enough, then the David Letterman show on Monday night. He remains convinced that the more he plays dust speck in the national eye, the further he'll get in passing his leftist agenda. He's also confident our media won't hold him accountable. They just hold him.
"I can't tell you how satisfying it is to watch you work!" a beaming Letterman gushed to Obama. Even during that show, Letterman was still whacking away at George W. Bush as an idiot, unctuously currying favor with the new president. Letterman doesn't pretend to be an objective journalist, of course. But can you recall him ever voicing his satisfaction with conservatives?
Perhaps the most amazing thing Obama did -- over and over -- on Sunday was to scold the media for making the national dialogue coarser by allowing his critics to have a voice on the networks. "Let's face it, the easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude," he said.
Obama should be embarrassed. This is amateurish and silly (if I say so rudely). It's also a broken record. When Reagan, Bush I and Bush II were in office, nasty demonstrators -- even rioters -- were celebrated by the left. But when Democrats take control (Clinton, Obama), any criticism becomes angry, hateful, and now racist.
If Obama looked on page 29 of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' legislation -- the bill he hopes will enact his healthcare plans into law -- he would have read this line: "The consequence for not maintaining (health) insurance would be an excise tax."
What part of those two words doesn't he understand? The government imposes a raft of excise taxes on all of us: the tires for our cars, alcoholic beverages, jewelry and many other purchases. Now it wants to add health insurance to the tax-revenue list as a penalty for those who do not purchase a product the feds insist you must buy or else face fines up to $950 for an individual and up to $3,800 a year for a family.
The House healthcare bill, which is stuck in a holding pattern awaiting the Senate's version, also makes no attempt to disguise what the mandated penalties are called: a "tax on individuals without acceptable healthcare coverage."
On Sept. 12, 2008, candidate Obama told voters in Dover, N.H., "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
But since his election, Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill have been ignoring that no-tax pledge left and right.
The House-passed climate-change energy bill, pending in the Senate, would essentially impose pass-through taxes on everyone's electric and home-heating bills, the gas in their car and virtually everything else that consumers buy. Obama signed the tobacco-tax-hike bill earlier this year. He plans to raise the two top income tax rates that will fall heavily on small business. All these taxes hit middle-income Americans making far less than $250,000.
Now, Obama may think that a penalty or fine is not really a tax, but that would be duplicitous, say top tax accountants.
President Obama has no greater friend and supporter than Newsweek editor Evan Thomas. Actually, it’s not really accurate to describe Evan Thomas as a friend of the President; he’s more like a worshiper. It was Evan Thomas who managed what we all thought was an impossible feat: He one-upped Chris Matthews. Matthews had famously said that he felt a “tingling going up and down his leg” when he heard candidate Obama speak. Few thought it was possible to exceed that for adulation. But Evan Thomas said that Obama at Normandy “hovered above all like a God.” You’d have to go to North Korea to find more fulsome praise of a dear leader.
Editors and publishers have prioritized advancing a left-wing agenda ahead of the truth. And to advance an agenda, they must control the news, not report it.
Their first tactic is to simply ignore a story. In most cases, it works. But when it comes to questions regarding ACORN, it hasn't worked because Glenn Beck and some other courageous journalists have refused to let the story die.
When ignoring the story doesn't work, the next recourse is to distort or spin the news in order to regain control over the story.
With the ACORN scandal, the secret filming in ACORN offices by twenty-something journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, they have caught America's attention. These brave young people have done the type of gutsy journalism that used to be the domain of once-powerful "60 Minutes" on CBS. Ironically, the media that used to catch this type of corruption have instead had the audacity to attack O'Keefe and Giles for entrapment.
The impotence of this once-powerful force, America's mainstream media, is embarrassing. Today "60 Minute"s is the domain of the most slavishly pro-Obama interviews and propaganda.
The mainstream media are hoping that at some point in the process, the American people will tire of the ACORN corruption issue and simply move on. This is what happened with the Monica Lewinsky and corruption scandals of the Clinton presidency. Whether this happens or not to the ACORN fraud and criminal activities problem is up to all of us. Will we succumb to fatigue before we hold the media and the officials they are protecting accountable? This question remains to be answered.
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a scandal. This story has become breaking news lately thanks to some recent guerilla journalism. But the problems of ACORN represent a broader, and even more scandalous idea: the conventional acceptance of the left's self-righteous claims to having a monopoly on all politics, policy and lifestyles that are good.
ACORN, if you haven't heard, is a radical organization that devotes itself with laser-like intensity to the maxim that all politics is local. The group supposedly exists to find affordable housing and provide social services for low-income families. But when two undercover, enterprising young people equipped with a hidden camera walked into an ACORN office, posing as an over-the-top pimp and prostitute wanting to establish a brothel dealing in enslaved children from other countries, ACORN employees offered the two advice: how to get on welfare; how to cheat the tax system; how to get housing from the government; and how to hide the criminal profit (a tin in your back yard, natch)
In the wake of the video, the Senate -- with seven notable exceptions -- voted to bar new federal funding for ACORN. But beyond the outrageous seven and the video, this is an opportunity for deeper revelations still.
Federally aided counsel to a pimp and prostitute and pervasive allegations of voter fraud aren't the worst of it. The reaction that has greeted the furor has been the most disturbing facet of the whole sorry affair. There is a place, a time and a need for getting to the bottom of the whys and hows of social pathologies. But that time is not while watching an organization that gets federal funding offer help with the sex trafficking of children on YouTube. And yet that was the default position of some on the left to this scandal.
ACORN's chief executive Bertha Lewis would eventually surrender to the demand for atonement, and issue a statement saying, "We have all been deeply disturbed by what we've seen in some of these videos. I must say, on behalf of ACORN's Board and our Advisory Council, that we will go to whatever lengths necessary to re-establish the public trust." But that was only after being on adamant defense.
And Lewis wasn't alone in self-protection mode. When the first video dropped, a blog on National Public Radio's Web site excused crimes as part and parcel of the plight of the community organizer: "It's also important to keep in mind that ACORN's workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves, with all that entails -- poor schools, high crime and the sorts of social problems that have been documented for decades." The post continued: "So the flaws conservatives are pointing out about ACORN are not so much problems associated with that organization per se but more about the problems of being poor and minority in urban America." Don't blame them, in other words. They can't help themselves, they're poor people.
And herein lies the deeper scandal -- it's not just the denial of what is right in front of your face, it's denial of a bad mode of operating, of a sickness in policy and philosophy. For as much as the right is attacked for being dismissive of the poor and most vulnerable, the left clutches that which continues the plight of government dependence among so many.
ACORN is wedded to stale thinking that all too often makes people dependent, crushes responsibility, creativity and our very natures. And the Obama administration only plans to continue to increase welfare spending, ensuring that the system that gave birth to ACORN and its inexcusable conduct will continue to thrive.
That NPR item began with the announcement that the "'ACORN versus conservatives' contest of wills is beginning to look like some new version of the Cold War with either side claiming the other is evil and vowing to never give in until it prevails." There's something to that observation, actually. These tea parties, best sellers about liberty and tyranny and liberal fascism, they're about something: they're about ideas. Most of all, they're about preserving that which makes America exceptional.
Looking at the latest high-profile “report” from the United Nations on the recent war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, it’s not difficult to understand why the vast majority of Americans harbor deep distrust of the international body.
Though the UN has a disturbing history of cozying up to thugs and tyrants—each dictator has an vote in the General Assembly equal to the United States—it is the international body’s unrelenting obsession with Israel that reveals its moral bankruptcy.
When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.
The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administration’s efforts to move the country in a new direction.
Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned", leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.
In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
Analysis: Hoax. The April 1 posting date suggests it may have been intended as an April Fools prank, but given that it does little more than parrot some of the actual tenets of the so-called "Birther" movement (folks who claim Barack Obama is ineligible for the presidency due to alleged citizenship issues), it barely qualifies as satire.
Is it really an AP news story?
No. The Associated Press ("AP") never published such a story. It didn't run in any real newspaper, nor on any real wire service. It can, however, be found reposted on a plethora of anti-Obama blogs and websites.
Did a group called "Americans for Freedom of Information" release Obama's transcripts?
No. The organization doesn't exist — or it didn't at the time this message first began circulating, at any rate. A similarly-named website went up after the fact, but there's no evident connection between the website and this fake news story.
Have Obama's Occidental College transcripts been released at all?
No, nor has any court of law "ordered" them released, according to Occidental College administrators.
Did Obama attend Occidental under the name "Barry Soetoro"?
No. Soetoro was the name of Obama's stepfather, but there's no evidence he attended college under that name. Fellow alumni quoted in the press remember him as "Barry Obama." An Occidental College spokesperson told FactCheck.org there are no records showing that Obama used his stepfather's last name.
Did Obama attend Occidental under a Fulbright Scholarship for Foreign Students?
No. According to various news sources, Obama did attend Occidental on a scholarship, but it wasn't a Fulbright, let alone a Fulbright Scholarship designated for foreign students. The Fulbright Foreign Student Program is for Master's Degree and Ph.D. candidates. Obama was an undergraduate.
Did the Daily Mail mention these revelations in a news story entitled "Obama Eligibility Questioned"?
No. No such story turns up in a search of the British newspaper's archive.
Did the Supreme Court agree to hear arguments on Obama's eligibility?
No. The Supreme Court refused to consider the Donofrio case.
Did Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation release a study showing Obama has spent $950,000 in campaign funds to fight litigation over his legitimacy?
I could find no record of such a study being published. The Foundation does exist and its Executive Director is a man named Gary Kreep, but he is on record as saying this story is a hoax.
I don’t blame liberals for wanting to ignore and deny the truth in front of their faces. It must be a horrible shock for them, after such incredible successes in 2006 and 2008, but they do so at their own peril.
More threatening than the raw number of those who have showed up at tea party protests and town hall meetings over the past eight months, is the makeup of the protesters. As Mark Hemingway at National Review Online noted, “…overall it was an undeniably sober and informed crowd, especially in comparison to your standard left-liberal protest march. These people have jobs, are influential in their communities and you can be darn sure they plan on voting next November.”
Other lies in Obama's speech included his claim that the health care plan will not add to the deficit, that anyone who is satisfied with his current health plan can keep it and that his plan will not require raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year.
The fundamental lie in all the Democrats' plans is the pretense that they can insure an additional 50 million people without increasing costs and/or without reducing benefits for the other 250 million people who are basically satisfied with their current health care. People are protesting at tea parties and town meetings because they realize this is not possible no matter how many passionate speeches Obama gives.
Another lie in Obama's speech was saying that the plan does not jeopardize Medicare benefits that seniors currently receive. He plans to cut $500 billion out of Medicare "waste and inefficiency," which can't be done without reducing benefits.
Obama told another lie when he claimed that the Democrats' health care plan does not set up "panels of bureaucrats" with the authority to withhold life-sustaining treatment from elderly patients. He compounded his lie by accusing anybody who talks about such death panels of "a lie, plain and simple" (which everybody recognized as a not-so-subtle reference to Sarah Palin).
The surprise was that nobody cried, "You lie," when Obama said, "Under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." Anyone who follows this issue knows that all Democratic-sponsored bills cover abortion funding, and that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the health care bill because it only prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions financed through Medicaid.
Obama promised Planned Parenthood that: "In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of the plan that I propose."
Obama also stated: "We're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services." Nobody disputes the fact that "reproductive services" include elective abortions.
Obviously, the feminists in Obama's audience knew he was lying when he said that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. If they hadn't believed Obama was lying, the feminists from Nancy Pelosi to Barbara Boxer to Barbara Mikulski would have erupted in audible protest.
The sanctimonious shock at Rep. Joe Wilson's, R-S.C., calling out, "You lie," when Barack Obama said the health care bill will not insure illegal aliens reminds me of the Casablanca police chief saying he was "shocked, shocked" to learn that gambling was taking place in the cafe.
Barack Obama's congressional pals had defeated the Republican amendment to require proof of legal residency in order to be covered by the health care bill, and the American people know that illegals are now getting free health care at emergency rooms.
The tea party march down on Pennsylvania Avenue on Sept. 12 was not only impressive in its size (estimates range from 1 million to 2 million Americans) but also because of the messages on the handmade signs they carried. They proved the marchers were authentic grass-roots, not astroturf.
Here are some samples of the homemade signs that show the rising activism of We the People: "The change I hoped for was freedom." "Recycle Congress." "1 czar down, 43 to go." "Don't Tread on Me." "You are not entitled to what I have earned." "I love my country, but I'm scared of my government." "Investigate ACORN." "Your fair share is NOT in my wallet." "Obamacare makes me sick." "I'm not your ATM." "Nurses Against Obamacare." "Abortion is not health care." "Undocumented worker" (under picture of Obama). "Congress pack your bags; you're going home in 2010." "If you're not outraged, you're not paying taxes." "Read the bill." "Bolsheviks promised change, too." Quotes from John Adams. And a sign carried by a 2-year-old child: "I owe $38,000."
Some signs were carried by immigrants: "Latinos are conservative, too." "I had enough socialism in the USSR."
Unlike Rep. Wilson, these offending Democrats have never apologized for their outrages. Did Rep. John Murtha apologize for prejudging and slandering our battlefield Marines who were later vindicated? Did Sen. Harry Reid ever apologize for calling President Bush a liar? Al Gore? John Kerry? Has suspected tax evader Rep. Charles Rangel apologized for his conduct while devising new ways to confiscate even higher taxes from honest, hardworking Americans who actually pay their taxes?
Did Sen. Dick Durbin retract the substance of his remarks in comparing Gitmo to the gulag? Did House leader Nancy Pelosi repent for defaming the CIA?
Not only has their own decorum in that very chamber been abysmal at times, such as when they booed President George W. Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address; they do much worse damage every week to this nation and its institutions than Joe Wilson conceivably could have done with his temporary breach of decorum.
Taken from a Cuban Blog and quoted exactly as it appeared.
The economic crisis in Cuba forced us to find substitutes for almost everything, including cosmetics. In the nineties, shoe polish was used to make the eyelashes stand out, dish soap became shampoo and vinegar a softener. A very humble friend was relieved when she discovered she could rub a handkerchief on the whitewashed walls and use it to powder her face. A laxative was left to sit for the mineral oil to separate, which was used as a sun tan lotion.
In a mute complicity men and women arranged to undress with the light off so they wouldn’t show the holes and mendings in their underwear, which would be washed at night and left to dry behind the fridge to wear the next day. The most humiliating was going back to our grandmother’s custom of washing out pads on the days you were menstruating and staying home—sitting in the bathroom—when the cycle of the moon came.
Conservative Christian leaders remained unconvinced that President Obama's health reform plan will not include abortion or mark a government takeover of health care.
In his speech Wednesday night before Congress, President Obama renewed his calls to revamp the nation's health care system to ensure that all Americans are covered. He also insisted the proposed reform plan would not fund abortion, create death panels to decide whether the elderly lived or died, insure illegal immigrants or constitute a government takeover of health care.
Several conservative Christian leaders, however, said the president was being disingenuous, arguing that the Capps Amendments, passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed, allows abortion coverage in the public health plan.
"The healthcare issue and the town halls have truly galvanized them and brought everyone together. The people coming out to our rallies believe very firmly that they (the administration) are trying to shove this down people's throats," Levi Russell, spokesman for the Tea Party Express, told me.
Three big things are happening in all of this. The president and his party are getting a needed lesson about overreaching. The Republicans' once-fractured base has found its voice again. And participatory democracy is alive and well in America.
Barack Obama hired Anthony “Van” Jones as a special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Jones is an admitted “rowdy Black nationalist” and “communist” who was also a co-founder of the communist revolutionary organization STORM: Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.
Quick question: how many Marxists, Communists, Domestic Terrorists and raving racialists does the President get to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?
The reason the president surrounds himself with radical leftists like Van Jones is because on this point he is in fundamental agreement.
Revolution anyone?
President Barack Obama, and his Democrat Party cohorts, simply fails to understand that government doesn’t create jobs and spark the economy. It also fails to sustain families and individuals during the hard times created by economic recessions.
For instance, Obama's ideas for stimulating the economy -- such as more construction projects -- will not jump start the economy. Will it help some people keep their jobs? Sure. Will it strengthen Obama’s union allies and keep government programs afloat? Definitely. But will it help average citizens facing economic turmoil in the lives? NO.
If American capitalism is allowed to function free of government intrusion, the marketplace will always find a way to help those Americans suffering personal economic woes. It's in their best interest for capitalists to help their fellow Americans. And that help is rendered without the curse of government intrusion into the affairs of the American people and their communities.
If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.
Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.
Posted by toninobologny on August 20, 2009
Following is an interview with New York’s former Lt. Governor Betsy McCaughey warning about healthcare rationing planned for elderly (approximately age 60+) on page 425 of the current US House Democrat’s bill: http://tinyurl.com/mcmq6h
Maddow and Obama insist that there was no provision in the proposed bill that suggests end of life counseling. Maddow even referred to it as Living Will preparation. It was actually the next section of the bill (1233). So tell me this, if it wasn’t in there, why did they take it out last Thursday?
AARP supports it! Even though they are speaking out on television that they are not, here is one of their commercials and don’t forget to visit their POLICY site! It is complete with contact names. Give me a break!
They think we're crazy. "They" are the sneering defenders of Barack Obama who can't fathom the backlash against the president's nationwide speech to schoolchildren next Tuesday. "We" are parents with eyes wide open to the potential for politicized abuse in America's classrooms.
Ask moms and dads in Farmington, Utah, who discovered this week that their children sat through a Hollywood propaganda video promoting the cult of Obama. In the clip, a parade of entertainers vow to flush their toilets less, buy hybrid vehicles, end poverty and world hunger, and commit to "service" for "change." Actress Demi Moore leads the glitterati in a collective promise "to be a servant to our president." Musician Anthony Kiedis pledges "to be of service to Barack Obama."
The campaign commercial crescendos with the stars and starlets asking their audience: "What's your pledge?"
--- If you are not afraid, you should be.
In U.S. Department of Education materials surrounding the first national presidential address to public-school students, children were encouraged to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. After some genuine and vociferous backlash, the Obama administration took back some of these recommendations for recruiting students to the cause that is Barack Obama.
The culmination of the whole mess, however, was very clear; to "pledge to be of service to Barack Obama . . . to be a servant of our president and all mankind."
The key to stopping Obama's far-left agenda is to understand where his heart is. If politicians let their guard down and compromise, the Obama steamroller will regain its momentum and forge ahead to gobble up our individual liberties.
Obama's heart is and always has been on the farthest reaches of the left wing of politics. His driving ambition is to force fundamental change on America. That should go without saying, but it must be repeated -- and repeated -- lest people's forgiving spirits and short memories generate just enough complacency to allow Obama to get back on track.
President Obama is having difficulty convincing most Americans that national health control will improve their lives and now has turned to the clergy to persuade the American public that upending our present system is necessary to fulfill, as he says, "the religious obligation of helping others.” Recently, he held a conference call with a group of liberal Jewish rabbis and he suggested that they use their pulpits and sermons during the upcoming Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, to convince their flocks that his national health control legislation constitutes the "moral and ethical thing to do." The President went on to say: "I need your help," and many that listened appear eager to turn their Houses of Worship into lobbying pulpits.
President Obama is having difficulty convincing most Americans that national health control will improve their lives and now has turned to the clergy to persuade the American public that upending our present system is necessary to fulfill, as he says, "the religious obligation of helping others.” Recently, he held a conference call with a group of liberal Jewish rabbis and he suggested that they use their pulpits and sermons during the upcoming Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, to convince their flocks that his national health control legislation constitutes the "moral and ethical thing to do." The President went on to say: "I need your help," and many that listened appear eager to turn their Houses of Worship into lobbying pulpits.
What separates the Judeo-Christian outlook from other religions, what makes it unique, is its belief in Freedom of Conscience. This blessing will be removed by the President's plan since doctors will be forced to terminate life or withhold life-prolonging medicines and operations if they wish to keep their jobs as determined by a national board of health procedures. This is an arrogant plan, inhering power to an elitist few over the many. It is hubris on the part of our President, a very unreligious characteristic.
President Barack Obama’s recent demonstration of megalomania in insisting on beginning the school year by simultaneously addressing all public school kids in the United States elicited a concise response: “it’s sick.”
This is a crude attempt by the Department of Education and the White House to blur all distinctions between education and cult-of-personality propaganda.
Challenges from parents and taxpayers everywhere could force a change in White House plans. The idea of using government schools to force students to bond with the maximum leader might seem appropriate for Cuba or North Korea, but it’s clearly out of place in a Constitutional republic.
