Wednesday, October 28, 2009

H1N1: National Emergency or Hype?

Let’s start with the fact that H1N1 IS a really virus and it is nasty. It has hit my immediate family and several friends. I don’t want to belittle the fact that it will knock you on your feet and, yes, some people are dying. We have debate in my family for the last 2 weeks whether or not to get the vaccine, because my family as a matter of practice do not usually get the flu vaccines. My kids’ school sent home a letter that they were going to give free vaccines at school and another local school district has had to close for a week due to the virus. Are these precautions necessary? Absolutely! We can’t be to cautious when it come to this flu or virus.

When President Obama declared H1N1 virus a national emergency the now famous quote from Rahm Emanuel echoed in my head, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. But is this really a national emergency? Or an unfortunate circumstance hyped into an emergency?

Here is what I found out: In August, the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology release a report that predicts a scenario of 30,000 to 90,000 people dying in the United States from the pandemic. During a normal flu season the mortality rate is about 36,000. According to the CDC situation update the mortality for H1N1 from April – Oct 17, 2009 is 1004 laboratory confirmed deaths in the US. Is it me? I can’t make the connection of an emergency. Is the worst still to come? I hope not.

What is happening is the flu season is starting earlier than usual, as was predicted. Then you pile on a prediction of overwhelmed hospitals (yet to happen) and with the added prediction of the mortality rate 30,000 – 90,000. Well, what can you do but declare a national emergency. What does that mean, anyway?

A National Emergency gives the President Powers:

Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law,seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.

These powers are subject to the checks and balances in Congress, including rescinding, but these days that is of little comfort to me. By declaring H1N1 a national emergency he gives himself power. The AP had this in their coverage of the declaration:

The national emergency declaration was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius extraordinary powers during a crisis.
On April 26, the administration declared swine flu a public health emergency, allowing the shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting medications from a federal stockpile to states in case they eventually needed them. At the time, there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of people recovering easily. There was no vaccine against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the initial step necessary for producing one.
"As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communities, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic," Obama wrote in Saturday's declaration.
He said the pandemic keeps evolving, the rates of illness are rising rapidly in many areas and there's a potential "to overburden health care resources."

So to re-cap, on April 26th the swine flu was declared a public health emergency. Now it is a national emergency because we are “preparing” for the worst. This makes it easier for hospitals. Well this patriot is not buying it and there is much more to the story.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

The Progessives

The United States has elected 43 presidents before the Obama Administration took over the Oval Office. We fought and won, two world wars, liberated millions of people worldwide from tyranny, and worked cooperatively with other sovereign nations to rebuild entire continents. Some might say the character of our nation is well established considering we have been a democracy for just over 230 years now. But, President Obama, told the United Nations General Assembly, "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions, we have taken in just nine months."

As a candidate, Obama said that he wanted to 'fundamentally change the foundations of America'. He may not call himself a "Progressive' as Hillary Clinton does, but, he certainly is a member of the Progressive Party nonetheless..

Professor R.J. Pestritto, wrote the following for the Glenn Beck Show:

Many on the left today call themselves "progressive" and they do so not just because it's a nicer way of saying 'liberal', but also because they intend to revive
the political principeles of America's original Progressive, from the Progressive Era of the late 1880's through World War I.""In a big-government push for change, the First Reform Era, began years before the Civil War with attention to working conditions, the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners. This was an effort to help the social problems that developed during the Industrial Revolution. The frontier had been tamed, great cities and businesses developed, and an overseas empire established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism."

The second Progressive era began during Reconstruction and lasted until the American entry into World War I. The New Deal came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual culture a generation prior and many say that the New Deal is the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today.
The second Progressive era owes their success to the media, or writers who detailed poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor and supported the conservation movement, railroad legislation and food and drug laws.

The Progressive added new amendments to the Constitution: a new way to elect senators, prohibition and suffrage. Social workers operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, the needs of American Americans and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all — a major shortcoming of the Progressive Movement.
According to Pestritto:
"While our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong and vigorous, they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends of responsibility: government while not weak, was to strictly limited."

The Progressive conception of government, was the opposite: Progressives agreed on the idea of a "living" constitution. They wanted government to take on whatever role the times demand. They argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that America should adjust according."

Progressives hated the principles of American government and the Declaration of Independence. Woodrow Wilson, said that "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface'-- the part which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government. Theodore Roosevelt, used the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike and is attributed with saying, "To hell with the Constitution when people want coal"! So, moving forward, there are two connections between the original Progressive Era and the crisis we face today according to Constitutional Blog:
The first connection is the abandonment of the Constitution. Politicians of both parties, Republican and Democrats, have spent the better part of the 20th century disregarding the Constitution, as they looked to the government (as career politicans) to solve every human problem. The Constitution's limits on government are not part considered as politicians debate the intervention in our economy and society.

The second connection has to do with policy. The Progressives knew our original system of government was not capable of handling all of the new task. They envisioned a vast set of bureaucratic agencies with broad and vague Congressional laws to delegate the power and discretion to them.

The TARP bill is a perfect example of the Progressive Plan. Our Congress said to the Treasury agencies: here a trillion dollars, here's the legal authority, determine what is best for the public and regulate accordingly. Coming soon: Healthcare, Cap and Trade, Fairness Doctrine...These are the steps that Obama is using to "fundamentaly change the foundations of America"

Laura and Michelle

"Special Deals" in Health Care Bill

Last week, Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Propsperity hosted a teleconference with Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ). Congressman Shadegg's prediction on healthcare is that, "this bill will pass...unless the American people rise up again like they did in August...and say 'NO'".

A central feature of the Baucus bill is the expansion of state Medicaid programs, which, we are told, is necessary to cover more of the nation's uninsured. The federal government will cover only parts of the expansion and stick fiscally strapped states with an additional $37 billion in costs.

Shadegg said, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is worried about losing his seat next year, so he worked out a deal by which the federal government will pay all of Nevada's additional Medicaids expenses for the next five years." Under this 'special deal', Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan also qualify for this perk The reason: these states 'are suffering more than most'.

The other 'special deal that Shadegg spoke about is in the state of New York. They have many union members with 'Cadillac' plans because his state has so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Senator Chuck Shumer didn't want a lot angry overtaxed New Yorkers, so he made a deal that the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states.

Schadegg, reading from an article in the Wall Street Journal by Kim Staussel, said "Senators Debbie Seabenow and John Kerry included $5 billion in the bill for a reinsurance program designed to defray the medical costs of union members..... Most senators are saving up their special state demands for when the bill hits the Senate floor."

I wonder what special deals Senators Warner and Webb will require for Virginia's vote.

Laura and Michelle

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

McDonnell: Is he the "right" person?

In our first "official" political poll, members of the Richmond Patriots Meet-UP site were polled about who they were supporting in the Governors race and why. The poll was open for a week, starting just after the Oct 13th debate. Here are the results:

McDonnell got 100% of the vote. O.k. I know, BIG SHOCKER, but you might be interested in the reasons WHY people are supporting McDonnell:

36% are voting for him because he is the right person for the job.
29% are voting for him because he is the lesser of two evils
24% are voting for him because there is no third party option
11% are voting for him because of party affiliation.

So, using my finely tuned analytical ability, I added the "lesser of two evils" and no "third party" option and come up with 53% of our patriots are voting for McDonnell because basically no other choice. Leaving 47% of people voting McDonnell because they he is a republican or "right for the job". WAKE UP... Republicans!! Next time it would be nice to see a candidate that has a majority of people thinking they are right for the job.

If your interested in the REAL polling data Survey USA has a lot of data. I think they are professionals or something.

Survey USA Results released 10/20/09

Monday, October 19, 2009

All about Net Neutrulity and Robert McChesney

Glenn Beck is discussing net neutrality today on his Fox News Show. This will give you some background information on all the Obama players.

Glenn Beck has talked about Mark Lloyd, the FTC, the FCC,and Internet regulations. My interest peaked, when Beck spoke about prolific Marxist media theorist, Robert McChesney. McChesney is the founder of Free Press and former editor of the 'Monthly Review', one of the most important Marxist publications in the world. Beck paraphased the article McChesney wrote in February's "Monthly Review", where he said,

"Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to neccessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself. Also, there is no real answer, but to remove brick by brick, the capitalism system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist priniciples."

In an interview in 'The Bullet" McChesney says:

Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution...any successful left project needs to integrate (the media) into its strategic program.

In his 1999 book, Rich Media, Poor Media, he says that "Media reform cannot win without widespread support and such support needs to be organized as part of board anti-corporate, pro-democracy movement."

According to Adam Thierer "McChesney argues, by us giving up this "sort of religous attachment to the idea of a 'free press' from which we suffer."

So, McChesney is a another far-left radical who hates capitalism. So, he wants to transform democracy by reforming media by imposing regulations and redefining the government's role in media ownership. Is it any surprise that Free Press worked with Obama Administration to develop tech policies? Free Press's Policy Director, Ben Scott, has had three meetings with the FCC's Chairman, Julius Genachowski to work on new Internet regulations known as 'net neutrality'.


Net neutrality is the idea that the government should mandate that ISPs should act as dumb pipes that transmit data across the net without regards to what is in the data packets. Advocates say the rules are necessary to ISP's from stifling innovation. The other side argue that consumer pressure will keep the net open and the rules will stifle attempts at innovation, such as finding ways to prioritize video calls over less urgent traffic such as photo uploads.

Julius Genachowski, FCC Chairman and Obama's law school classmate, promised on September 21, 2009 to back 'net neutrality'. He went further than expanding rules that prohibit ISPs from filtering or blocking net traffic, he proposed that they cover all broadband connections, including data connections for smart phones.


The Free Press co-authored "The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio." That's the book that Mark Lloyd, Obama's Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC, argued for the government to stop conservative talk radio by forcing commercial owners who fail to abide by their rules to pay a fee that would subsidize public broadcasting. Lloyd agrees that social change (Marxism) can be established by 'democratic' ownership of the news media. He contends the 'ability of a government to facilitate political communication among its citizens determines the success of the democratic experiment.' The bottom line, he wants the government, not corporations or private individuals, to own and control the media.

Media Research Center President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell, reported on FTC's news industry workshop in December 2009, which could lead to recommendations for legislation to regulate print, television and online media on everything from changes in anti-trust copyright laws to media tax breaks. Proposals include direct government funding of media outlets. Obama's administration is working with the FCC to take ownership of media away from the corporations and put it under government control. They are working with FTC to change regulations so that the government can hold ownership positions in news media companies.

This is the antithesis of freedom of speech and a free society. They believe that government control of the media paramount to Marxist America.


Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality. Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, "The Cyber security Act of 2009." Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME)-RINO.

Barack Obama is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cyber security emergency" — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion. This S. 773 bill gives Barack Obama just what he wants. That's why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill."

As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment Rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised. It's also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.

We've already seen the Obama Administration's reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy." In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends' and neighbors' emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress. If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of all Americans' access to the Internet. Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cyber security professionals." If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they're federally-licensed bureaucrats.

Legislation like this, built on the same statist principles as the Patriot Act, has to sneak through Congress quietly. Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" on a big money bomb day for a strong liberty candidate threatening the establishment? Or how about message boards vital to planning and freedom rallies and protests of socialized medicine? With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare an "emergency" and shut down all online planning.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

In a previous post about The Reason Behind the Nobel. I wrote about the Muslims were gaining support in German court by a ruling that Muslims have the right to have their own mosques in German schools.

Unless you read the posts and blogs coming from Europe, you would never know that their governments are as polarized as our in America. Over the summer, rallies-turned-riots have been happening across the UK between right-winger protesters and Muslims. Supporters of the British National Party have been cautioning for years, that allowing massive third world immigration against the wishes of native Britons, would bring social unrest and increase the probability of a 'Yugoslavia-style' civil war.

As the BNO predicted, instead of creating a vibrant mutli-cultural society, the Muslim community remains secular with little integration. In order to appease the Muslim community, Britain now allows Sharia law as an option available to the Muslim Pakistani community and will not be revisited until some abuse of a woman or girl gets picked up the the media. Even polygamy, paid for by the British taxpayers, gets no legal attention, nor do the victims of this system get legal recourse.

In Europe and Canada, some have even supported immigrants selecting their own Sharia codes under special circumstances. For example, the Muslim community in Quebec tried to get legal recognition of strict Muslim Sharia law in family matters (marriage, divorce, status of women). In Canada’s political correctness, it almost happen – had not organized and outraged feminists defended these Muslim women as Canadians, and would not let them be battered, married off by force, or other Sharia horrors.

This summer in England, a top Muslim leader, Mohammad Nassem, urged his followers to “vent their feelings” against anti-Islamic protesters during a rally that ended in violence and with about 80 arrests. Muslims were encouraged by the leader to counter-demonstrate which was organized by the right-wing English Defense League (EDL). The Times reports that Dr. Naseems advice came less than a month after Muslims of predominantly Asian heritage clashed with the EDL at another anti-Islamic rally that led to 35 arrests.

The far-right groups in England are: Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and the English Defence League (EDL).

SIOE is an alliance of people across Europe with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming the dominant religion/political force in Europe. It originated with the joining together of Stop Islamificering of Denmark (SIAD), a political party dedicated to stopping the Islamisation in Denmark, and a loose association of people in England, with a rallying cry of “No Sharia Here”who want to maintain English law and stop the creeping growth of sharia law in England. They came to prominence a few years ago when it organized a demonstration in Germany attended by members of nationalist parties from all around Europe.

The EDL was created on June 27 2009, as a reaction to some Muslims abusing parading British soldiers. They say they formed out of 'frustration at the lack of any significant action by the British Government against extreme Muslim preachers and organizations. Since then they have taken part weekly demonstrations, against Muslims and the construction of mosques. On reading their website, they have rallies this weekend, and scheduled into December.

On their impressive website, the EDL describes themselves as non-racists. non-violent and non-political, as peacefully protesting militant Islam. A PDF file from their website reads: It's Not Racist to Oppose Radical Islam. But according to the British media, the EDL uses street confrontation to create trouble, are 'hooligans' and frequent the pub before challenging the Islamic protesters.

I wonder what they would be called if they drank tea?

The Reason Behind the Nobel

Among the funny emails I received in the past few days, the best were about Obama winning a Grammy or the Tour de France. I have passed these jokes on, but the underlying question remains about the legitamacy of the Nobel prize given to a President who American does not think deserves it.

Many say that Obama received the recognition becasue of he hated of George W. Bush and the path he chose for America. To them it doesn't make a difference whether Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize or if he had done anthing in the 11 days he was in office before being nominated. Obama is just not George. Good enough.

I think the Nobel committee acted with purpose and aim.

According to John Jay of, he wrote:

"Norwegian and Euro-leftists do not act in a manner which is not calculated to advance their own views of the world, not of their own schemes and plans as to how it is to be incluenced and run. This is not stupidity: it is a rather informed self interest-and Barack Obama has done plenty, which in the view of the'international community' as it views itself, e.g. the European Union and the O.I.C. meerits his consideration as a Nobel laureate."

Obama did not get the award because of what he had accomplished by America, but for what he has said about the way he intends to purue international relations and US foreign policy. The Norwegian Nobel Committee championed "the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls and initiative that have yet to bear fruit: easing Amerian conflicts with Muslim nations."

Obama has said that the US is sensitive to the goals of Islam and while in Turkey, said that we (the US) ,does not consider ourselves a Christian nation. Since the Europeans have chosen to appease Islam as well, and have premised their entire domestic economic and diplomatic futures to accommodate Islam and the Muslims, they applaud Obama for moving in that direction.

To quote Walid Phares:

"Months and few short years from now, supporters of the 'new direction' in US foreign policy, as well as academics, will frame Obama's Nobel as a consolidation of a new world order, while the media outburst following the granting declaration will be forgotten. This honoted policy is to ensure that there will be no more American intervention overseas to provide democratic change, let alone revolutions,particularly in the so-called 'Muslim world.'

Phares continues:

"The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is based in Norway, which cooperaties with OPEC and often has joint ventures. OPEC is controlled by the members of the Organization of the Islamic-Conference (OIC) and the Arab League. These regimes,have one common goal: Oppose the rise of democracy."

A German court ruled last week, that Muslims have the right to have their own mosques at German schools. That doesn't seem like a major ruling, but it's the foot in the door to infiltrate German courts. Berlin is receiving Al Qaeda terrorist threats, on the scale of our 9.11, if they do
not withdraw from Afghanistan. According to Dr. Sami Alrabaa, Muslims lead by radicals would demographically and 'democratically, legally take over by 2070'.

Well, you say that's 60 years from now and that's Germany. It couldn't happen in the US.

Have you heard of the Armana Mutual Funds Trust located in Bellingham, Washington? They are part of the Global Islamic Finance Industry. One of the service is Hala Investing, which is investing according to the priniciples of Shairia Law.

Another service is investing for Hajj. This is directly from their website: Islam mandates that all Muslims who are financially and physically capable perform a pilgrmage to Mecca--the Hajj--one in a lifetime. This institution advises you how to financially prepared for Hajj.

Obama won't have to use the Armana Trust to go to Hajj. He can use the $1 million awarded from the Nobel Peace Prize.

More Funding for Acorn

$1 million in Homeland Security funding typically earmarked for fire departments has been awarded to ACORN. The grant to ACORN's Louisiana office became public on Oct. 2, less than three weeks after the House and Senate voted to cut off ACORN funding.It was one of only three such grants issued to the state and made up almost 80 percent of the firefighting money earmarked for Louisiana, prompting Senator David Vitter, (LA-R)to demand that the funds be taken back. "I request that you rescind this grant based on a history of abuse of federal dollars by ACORN and their clear lack of expertise in this area," said Vitter.

I've no problem with not getting a grant, I've lost grants before," said Chief Flynn, one of the fire officials who complained to Mr. Vitter in a letter. "My issue is ACORN in New Orleans. Their mission statement says nothing about fire safety or fire prevention. It bothered me that ACORN got $1 million and there are so many smaller and bigger departments that have a need for that money."

ACORN received $997,402, slightly less than the maximum allowable grant of $1 million. A total of $35 million was available for the grants project to fire districts across the country this year.

"Several Louisiana fire departments have voiced their serious concerns to me over the award of these funds to ACORN," Mr. Vitter said in the letter. "We can all understand that there are never enough funds to allocate for all the deserving requests of fire departments, and each year there are many more requests than funds available," he wrote. "But when so many fire departments throughout the nation are struggling for funding for important and lifesaving projects, how is it that a non-fire department with no clear expertise in fire safety and prevention is given such a large award for fire safety?"

Barack Obama: the Cloward-Piven, Candidate of Manufactured Crisis.

Jim Simpson on "Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis" edited

No one has connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left, but it is apparent that he is a willing participant and has spent most of his adult life immersed in it. Obama can be tied directly to a strategy that has motivated many, of the radical leftist organizations in the US since the 1960s: The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy was first seen in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-
Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government
bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and
economic collapse.
Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:
"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his
1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and
statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal
social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to
its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist
"rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks, org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:
Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in
revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing
about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and
Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to
force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:
By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can
occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and
protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to
public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government entities
but not currently receiving all they can.
The offensive seeks to identify or create new benefits.
The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the
ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights."

According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."

According to another City Journal article titled "Compassion Gone Mad
"The movement's impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already
climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay's first
two years; spending doubled... The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade
later it had 1.5 million.

In 1970, one of George Wiley's protégés, Wade Rathke -- like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) -- was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn't accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke's group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income "rights." Shortly thereafter they changed "Arkansas" to "Association of" and ACORN went nationwide.

Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN's website: "ACORN is the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country," It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity.

On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early 1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.

ACORN's voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.

2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.

3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for many candidates.

ACORN's website brags: "Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote." Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.

Barack Obama ran ACORN's Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation's wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suite he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment ACT (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter's answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas SenatorPhil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."

ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post.:

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining"-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama representd ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN HOUSING, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.

As a New York Post article describes it:
A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find
ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists
intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated;
others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department. Flexible lending
programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with
traditional standards.

On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with with ACORN.

Investor's Business Daily added:
The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans
containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led
by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public- interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk.

As Bloomberg reported "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN's negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund," granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.
Even now, unbelievably -- on the brink of national disaster -- Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20% of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in "community organizing" from Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist.

Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with "guilt by association." But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama's work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:

"...the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr.
Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is
a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago."

Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry's favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN's Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.

We have heard about Bill Ayers, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago's New Party , a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party's endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an article on the New Party observes: "Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate."

The reason for George Soros' fervent support of Obama, comes from the President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.

Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders.

This is Obama's own words:
"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even
before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in
Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. -
Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

In another article on Obama's ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:
It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN'S Project Vote: as an attorney representing ACORN's successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN's representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns -- both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN's true goals. He could not be unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama's V.P. search after this gem came out:
An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of "Obama's political circle." Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout.

Firefighters lose: US grant goes to ACORN

Nearly $1 million in Homeland Security funding typically earmarked for fire departments has been awarded to ACORN. The grant to ACORN's Louisiana office became public on Oct. 2, less than three weeks after the House and Senate voted to cut off ACORN funding.

It was one of only three such grants issued to the state and made up almost 80 percent of the firefighting money earmarked for Louisiana, prompting one of the U.S. senators from the state to demand that the funds be taken back.

"I request that you rescind this grant based on a history of abuse of federal dollars by ACORN and their clear lack of expertise in this area," said Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican.

"I have no problem with not getting a grant, I've lost grants before," said Chief Flynn, one of the fire officials who complained to Mr. Vitter in a letter. "My issue is ACORN in New Orleans. Their mission statement says nothing about fire safety or fire prevention. It bothered me that ACORN got $1 million and there are so many smaller and bigger departments that have a need for that money."

ACORN received $997,402, slightly less than the maximum allowable grant of $1 million. A total of $35 million was available for the grants project to fire districts across the country this year."

Several Louisiana fire departments have voiced their serious concerns to me over the award of these funds to ACORN," Mr. Vitter said in the letter. "We can all understand that there are never enough funds to allocate for all the deserving requests of fire departments, and each year there are many more requests than funds available," he wrote. "But when so many fire departments throughout the nation are struggling for funding for important and lifesaving projects, how is it that a non-fire department with no clear expertise in fire safety and prevention is given such a large award for fire safety?"

The money, formally awarded for fiscal year 2008, was given to the ACORN Institute, which bills itself as a research and training facility "to combat the poverty, discrimination and community deterioration that keeps low-income people from taking advantage of their rights and opportunities."

This is the second year ACORN has been awarded the fire prevention and safety grant. In the 2007 fiscal year, ACORN received $450,484 out of Louisiana's $859,596 share."The Senate voted Sept. 14 to cut off funding for ACORN in response to the release; the House followed suit three days later. The two bills will have to be combined before a final vote takes place.

However, the Internal Revenue Service says it will eject ACORN from the agency's volunteer tax assistance program, and the Census Bureau has excluded the group from helping with the 2010 census.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Acorn Still Funded...

Last month I wrote about the "defund Acorn" legislation being smoke and mirrors. In a recent interview the, Rep. Michele Bachmann revealed that it was even more smoke and mirrors than even I suspected. What congress pass was the senate bill and it EXPIRES at the end of the Oct. Acorn will continue to receive taxpayer money. As taxpayers we must demand that this stop and Acorn be investigated.

Related Article

The Lumina Foundation wrote SAFRA

Friday, October 9, 2009

Tort Reform would save BILLIONS!

Last Monday, President Obama had the Dr's from the American Medical Association to the White House for a photo op and as a show of support for his Health Care plan.


There are several fact to take into account when considering the AMA's endorsement of the Health Care Plan. First, AMA membership only accounts for 15-20% of all the practicing physicians. Second, there is another physicians group, The Coalition to Protect Patients Rights, who were not invited to the White House. In an,Op Ed to the WSJ, Donald J. Palmisano, and two former presidents of the AMA William G. Plested II AND Daniel H. Johnson JR. stated "It's unfortunate only supporters of the president's plans will be there. Mr. Obama has missed an opportunity to learn more about the real issues facing patients and doctors and to formulate a plan that truly puts patients in control with doctors as trusted advisers."

The Op/Ed continued with much of the same valid arguments that have been played all summer. We need keep competition in the system, encourage Health Savings Accounts and the list of others. It was the end of the op/ed that peaked my attentions:

Finally, the nation needs comprehensive medical malpractice reform. It is the surest and quickest way to slow down the rising cost of health care. Statistics from private insurers, as well as a Justice Department report of 2007, indicate that upwards of 80% of malpractice cases are closed without payment—and when there is a trial, the physician-defendant wins 89% of the time. Yet these lawsuits, even when dismissed or closed without payment, cost doctors time and money, and encourage defensive medicine. This adds billions to the cost of medical care. It also increases malpractice insurance premiums, the costs of which get passed on to patients. In too many cases, the malpractice environment forces doctors to leave communities, depriving patients of their trusted medical advisers or specialists whom they might need in an accident or other crisis.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office changes it position on the issue stating:

The latest analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that government health care programs could save $41 billion over ten years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted. Those savings are nearly ten times greater than CBO estimated just last year.

"Recent research has provided additional evidence that lowering the cost of medical malpractice tends to reduce the use of health care services," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote lawmakers, explaining the agency's shift. Previously, CBO had ruled that any savings would be limited to lower malpractice insurance premiums for doctors, saying there wasn't clear evidence physicians would also change their approach to treatment.

On Friday, Elmendorf essentially acknowledged what doctors have been arguing for years: fear of being sued leads them to practice defensive medicine. Some doctors will order a $1,500 MRI for a patient with back pain instead of a simple, $250 X-ray, just to cover themselves against the unlikely chance they'll be accused later of having missed a cancerous tumor.

My questions is, what WILL it take for congress to have an honest debate about health care?

You can read the entire WSJ Op/Ed HERE.


Not Evil Just Wrong

Not Evil Just Wrong will not premier in the movie theaters like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth did. No, it's going to be up to individual to step up and show the movie to friends and family. Join thousands of people nationwide on Sunday, Oct 18th and host a premier party. Link the ad to get your copy and let's start the common sense conversation.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The Boy Scouts and Kevin Jennings

The following is from a transcript from Kevin Jennings, President Obama's Safe School Czar, on keeping the Boy Scouts out of the public school system. This is from a 2000 speaking engagement with his former organization the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network in Iowa. In the same speech, Mr. Jennings advocated for mandating a gay friendly curriculum in public schools from kindergarten onward.


"The Boy Scouts are a private organization, and they therefore should be allowed to do what they want, and we (GLSEN) agree. They are a private organization, and they should be allowed to do whatever the want, which means they must leave the 11,000 schools where they are officially owned and operated in the district itself. If you want to have the right to do what you want, because you are private, you cannot expect public money and public employees spending employees spending their time to administering your program. The fact is that our public schools cannot be in the business of running discriminatory programs. It is wrong. It undermines the very reason why we have schools, and it must not happen."

Mr. Jennings bio is also mentioned prominently on the website, 'Scouting For All'. He is a member of their Scouting for All National Advisory Board. According to their website, the organizations mission is:

The mission of Scouting For All, a non-profit 501 (c)(3) organization, is to advocate on behalf of its members and supporters for the restoration of the traditionally unbiased values of Scouting as expressed and embodied in the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, and to influence the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to serve and include as participating members ALL youth and adult leaders, regardless of their spiritual belief, gender, or sexual orientation.

Saturday Night Date with Obama

This Saturday night, Obama will deliver the keynote address at the 13th annual National Dinner in Washington, DC, an annual event organized by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual activist group in the US.

The HRC has Bible studies online that are designed to 'move people of faith and congregations from acceptance to public advocacy'.

Is this address an endorsement of Kevin Jennings, the administrations Safe School czar?

Jennings, wrote the forward in a book called 'Queering Elementary Education' and the founder of Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) which promotes and affirms homosexual behavor in the school system. GLSEN is primarly known for its institutionalization of so-called Gay Straight Alliances (GSA's) in many public middle and high schools in Virginia.

Jennings agenda has little to do with the safety of kids and puts kids at serious risk, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

In a 1995 speech, Jennings admitted that GLSEN rhetoric about 'safety' was a political device:
"We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card-safety...We automatically thew our opponents onto the defense and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one."

In a 1997 speech, Jennings spoke opening about the desirability of actively 'promoting' homosexuality: "We were busy putting out press releases, and saying, "We're not promoting homosexuality, that's not what our program's about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." But being finished with our efforts might some day mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say, "Yeah, who cares?'"...That is our mission from this day forward."

When it comes to his views of Christianity, his hateful bigotry is abundantly clear: When it comes to his views of Christianity, his bigotry is abundantly clear: When talking about those who oppose the agenda of GSAs he said: They are 'not-yet-fully evolved views maybe because of their promimity to the Everglades, from whose ooze may have recently climbed, but I can't dismiss them as the ravings of single troglodyte. Instead, they represent a classic example of how right wing extremists continually try to mislead the public about the nate of purpose of GSAs."

Jennings is not qualified under any ethical standard to be entrusted with the safety of our nation's public school children

Take action today :Contact Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, urging him to call for Kevin Jennings' resignation. Contact your Senators and Congressmen to press Duncan for his resignation.

To stop the appointment of Jennings, go to and take action today

Spin Doctors for Obamacare

Spin Doctors for Obamacare by Michelle Malkin

Lights, camera, agitprop! The curtains opened on yet another artfully staged performance of Obamacare Theater this week. One hundred and fifty doctors took their places on the plush lawn outside the West Wing. The president approved the scenery: "I am thrilled to have all of you here today, and you look very spiffy in your coats".

White House wardrobe assistants guaranteed the 'spiffy.' As the New York Post's Charles Hurt reported, the physician "were told to bring their white lab coats too make sure that TV cameras captured the image". President Obama's aides hastily handed out costumes to those who came in suits or dresses before the doc-and-pony show began.

Obama's spin doctors belong to a group called Doctors for America (DFA), which reportedly supplied the white lab coats. The White House event was organized in conjunction with DGA and Organizing for Amerca, Obama's campaign outfit.

OFA and DFA are behind a massive new Obamacare ad campaign, letter-writing campaign and doctor-recruitment campaign. The supposedly 'grassroots' nonprofit DFA is a spin-off of Doctors for Obama, a 2008 campaign arm that aggresssively pushed the Democrats' government health care takeover. DFA claims to have thousands of members with a 'variety of backgrounds'. But there's little diversity in their views on socailized medicine (98% want a taxpayer funded public insurance option).

DFA president and co-founder Dr. Vivek Murthy, an internal medicine physician at Brighan and Women's Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, served as a member of Obama's Health Policy Advisory Committee and the New Engand Steering Committee during the 2008 presidential campaign.

DFA vice president Dr. Alice Chen of Los Angeles is an Obama donor and avowed supporter of Organizing for America, Obama's campaign shop run by the Democratic National Committee. On Monday, she posted on the OFA website with an appeal to Democratic activists for letter to the editor in support of Obama's 'health care reform.'

DFA 'senior advisor' Jacob Hacker is an Obamacare architect who laughed at criticism of the plan beging a Trojan horse or single-payer coverage. "It's not a Trojan horse, right', he retorted at a far-left Tides Foundation conference on health care. "It's just right there! I'm telling you. We're going to get there."

Here's a brief political donation history of other top DFA docs complied by Brian Faughnan at

Dr. Hershey Garner: (who stood on stage with Obama at the White House event) more than $10,000 in donations to Democratic candidates since 2001.
Dr. Winfred Parnell: More than $5,700 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
Dr. Michael Newman: $4,550 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
Dr. Boyd Shook: $3,500 in donations to Democrats since 2002.
Dr. Jan Sarnecki: $3,400 in donations to Democrats since 2004.
Dr. Amanda McKinney: (who also flanked Obama at the White House event) $2,750 in donations to Democratic candidates since 2001.
Dr. Tracy Nelson: $1,500 in donations to Obama.
Dr. Stanton McKenna: $1,000 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
Dr. Jason Schneider: $600 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
Dr. Biron Baker: $500 donated to Obama last year .
Dr. Nick Perencevich: $500 in donations to Democrats since 2008.
Dr. Elaine Bradshaw: $500 in donations to Obama last year.

Who unveiled Doctors for America earlier this spring? No, not the ordinary citizens outside the Beltway. The decidedly un-grassroots sponsors of the Doctors for America launch were Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the left-wing Center for American Progress, which is run by liberal operative John Podesta and underwritten by far-left billionaire George Soros.

CAP is a leading organization in the Health Care of American Now coalition, the so-called 'grassroots' lobbying group for Obama's health care takeover legislation run out of 1825 K Street in Washington, DC with a $40 million budget. CAP is also the parent group of Think Progress, the far left website leading the smear campaign against fiscally conservative actvists who protested at congressional town halls this summer. And several CAP alumni are now leading the Obamacare push at the Department of Health and Human Services, including special HHS assistant Michael Halle and HHS Director Jeanne Lambrew, a former senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who worked on health policy in the Clinton administration.

CAP/HCAN's most recent initiative? Bussing protesters to the private homes of health care executives last week to bully them over the public option--even as many health care executives line the pockets of Obama admininstration officials and allies lobbying on their behalf.

It's all in keeping with the elaborate Kabuki productions that have marked Tean Obama's effort to manufacture support for government run health care. They've been doctoring it up from Day One.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Redistribution is Already Happening.

According to Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation:

By 2012, nearly 1 trillion from the top 30% of American families will be redistributed among the bottom 70% if Obama's proposals on taxes, healthcare, and climate change become law according to the Tax Foundation reports. "Under the Obama plan, 70% of American families as a group, those earning less than $109,460 will receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes," said Scott Hodge, President of the Tax Foundation. The lowest income families will gain $10.44 in federal spending for every dollar they pay in taxes. Middle income families (those earning $65,000 to $85,000 annually), who are the targeted beneficiaries of many Obama policies, will recieve $1.15 in government spending benefits for every dollar they pay in taxes. Families making over $280,000 (the top 5%) will get back 56 cents of every dollar they pay in taxes while the highest earning families, those in the top 1% earning over about $700,000, will get back 33 cents in spending for every dollar they pay in taxes.


The Tax Foundation was founded in 1937 and it purpose is to “educate taxpayers about sound tax policy and the size of the tax burden borne by Americans at all levels of government.”

Here are two related articles that they have published to help get you informed.

Accounting for what families pay in tax and what they receive in government spending.

Under Obama's Policies, Most Families Earning up to $109,000 Will Get More Back from Government Benefits Than They Pay in Taxes

Laura and Michelle

Nancy Pelosi: Where are the Jobs

The unemployment rate in September rose from 9.7% to 9.8%, up a .1%. This wide reported number paints a picture of o.k. it's bad, but could be worst scenario. What most people do not understand is that this number does not show you the whole picture. The unemployment rate that the "fringe" media reports on every month only reports on the people who have jobs verse the people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks. It does not count people who have stopped looking for work.

"This current job report is actually a perfect example of this. We lost 785,000 jobs this past month. That makes it the the biggest month of job losses since March. But the number of people in the unemployed group rose only 214,000. This is because we saw over twice that number simply leave the work force altogether.

If we took employment numbers for this month compared it to the labor force for last month, we would have an unemployment rate of 10.2%… almost a half a percent higher than the one we have!"

This quote is from political math blog. (O.K. I'm a geek, I read this stuff.) The image I have burned in my mind when the monstrosity of a stimulus bill was passed was Nancy Pelosi saying "jobs, jobs, jobs" everytime she opened here mouth.

No, Mrs Pelosi, we are not losing 500 million jobs, but last month we lost 785,000 jobs and according to the labor department, all told, 15.1 million Americans are now out of work. Unacceptable and now there is rumors of a second stimulus package. This is oddly familiar and probably any teenager recognizes this scenario. The child goes to the parent to ask for money, when that runs out they go back and ask for more. When you don't work for what you get you have no incentive not to work. The difference in this case the child is robbing the parent and then pretending to pay it back.

To put the unemployment rate into perceptive here are the numbers broking down even more.

All workers | 9.8|
Adult men . | 10.3|
Adult women | 7.8|
Teenagers | 25.9|
White | 9.0|
Black or African |
American | 15.4|
Hispanic or Latino
ethnicity | 12.7|
Source is Bureau of Labor Statistic

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Cap and Trade, Part 2

On Wednesday, September 30th Climate Change Legislation (formerly known as cap and trade) was introduced by Sens Barbara Boxer and John Kerry calling for a 20% emissions cut by year 2020, tougher than the 17% cut the House bill that passed in June called for and a greater than 80% cut by 2050.

Although the bill calls for steeper initial emissions cut than the House measure, it also makes it easier for companies to comply by expanding the definition of what qualifies as a 'carbon offset'.
An offset is an investment in a program that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Many details were left out of the initial draft, including how to divvy up emissions allowances that will be worth tens of billions of dollars a year.

Responsibility for that, rests with the Senate Finance Committee, (now marking up the Baucus
healthcare draft.)

The measure was immediately criticized by Republians as an energy tax that threatens jobs. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.VA) called its requirements 'a disappointing step in the wrong direction'.

Obama said that release of the draft bill moves the country 'one step closer to putting America in control of our energy future and making America more energy independent'.

Boxer said her legislation 'address the major challenges of our generation' by curbing pollutions. creating new green jobs and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Boxer noted it's inclusion of a 'soft' collar that creates both a floor and ceiling for emission allowance costs to both spur investment in cleaner technologies and ease fears among businesses that energy prices will grow too high under the carbon cap.


Cap and Trade

Here's how the cap and trade theory works: The government gives companies permits to emit greenhouse gases, based on their past emissions, but set at lower levels than in the past. Companies can then cut their emissions levels by reducing production, find an expensive engineered solution to cut emissions, or buy allowances from more efficient companies in order to let a less green firm keep spewing greenhouse gases.

Cap and trade has been an enormous failure in Europe for the same reason it is politically popular here: Carbon is the only commodity trading where it it impossible to establish with reasonable accuracy how much is being bought and sold. Where the commodity that is traded is invisible and can perform no useful purpose for the purchaser, and wher both parties benefit if the quantities traded are exaggerated. It's an invitation for fraud and that's what it happening all over the world.

The CBO estimated cost per person in America will exceed $1,700 per person, per year. All of this because, we are supposedly warming up the planet. Have you heard of the sun? How about seasons?

If you would like to read all 832 pages, here it is:

Green Collar Jobs

There is no actual definition of what a 'green collar' job is, but this makes it easier for politicians to inflate the numbers they promise to create. It appears that any job remotely linked to a more environmentally friendly outcome would be counted.

So, a worker on an assembly line in a Prius factory would count. The kid taking the trash out at McDonalds would count.

The myth of a 'green collar job' is that new jobs are being created. If environmental regulations force power companies to go to natural gas for solar power, then the people who manufacture and install the panels will have 'new' jobs. But, those who mined and distributed the natural gas, will be out of work. Wouldn't that be a blue collar job transfer to a green collar job?

Senate Requires Generals to Testify

On Thursday, Senators voted 60-39 for an amendment by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) that requires Gens. Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and US Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairmen of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, to testify before the committee. However, they sidestepped a potential controversy by not setting a deadline. Voted down by a vote of 40-59, was the amendment by Senator John McCain (R-Az) the committee's co-chair that required a deadline of Nov. 15th. "The point is that we need to hear from the architects and the commanders," McCain said. "We as members of Congress, a co-equal branch of government, also have a responsibility in this decisoion making progress."

An internal assessment of the war in Afghanistan was leaked last week, with media reports on General McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops, which McCain supports. Obama already sent 21,000 troops to Afghanistan in January but has been under pressure to send more.

Reconciliation: A Nuclear Abuse of Power

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid said that he may choose reconciliation to get healthcare passed.

Reconciliation is an optional step of the annual budget process which allows legislation to be approved by 51 votes in the Senate, instead of the usual 60 votes necessary to withstand a filibuster. This could be 50 Senate votes plus VP Biden as the 51st vote. This process is a shortcut, limiting floor debate to only 20 hours.

It was created in the 1947 Budget Act to pass tax cuts and deficit reductions. Period. It was not meant to circumvent the role of the Senate.

This year, when Congress passed the budget, it set in place a process to pass healthcare, education, and climate change legislation. In the House, the budget instructed the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee to come up with $1 billion in deficit reductions for healthcare reform. In the Senate, the budget did the same for the Senate Finance and Health Committee (HELP). If lawmakers can come up with $1 billion in fake savings, they could use reconciliation to pass Obamacare.

The problem is that it would be very difficult for the liberals to navigate 'the tight budgetary constraints imposed by the Budget Act, the budget resolution and the Byrd Rule." The Byrd Rule prohibits that no reconciliation bill can make the deficit worse outside the budgetary window. This means that any provision in the legislation that's expected to cost taxpayers, even 10 years down the road, would doom the prospects of passage of the bill.

Reconciliation leaves incredible policy issues at the hands of the Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, who interprets the rules. The non-elected, Mr. Frumin, would be responsible for deciding what could and could not be included in the final healthcare bill.

I could not make this up, even if I tried. Fake savings, budgetary window, the Byrd Rule, and who is Alan Frumin?

In 2010, let's start over and call that reconciliation.

Reconciliation: The back up plan

In the recent post we told you about the Secret Plan to pass Health Care Legislation and it is not reconciliation. Reconciliation is the back up plan to the secret plan. But just so everyone is informed here is the basic on how it works.

Reconciliation is the 'inside the beltway' procedure that liberals could use to railroad through the unpopular and partisan bill dealing with budget. A reconciliation instruction is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debit limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The bills can not be filibuster, while it usually requires a majority of 60 Senators to silence a Senator who's using unlimited debate to hold up a measure in reconciliation it only takes 51 votes to shut down the process and pass a bill.

Sen. Robert Byrd, not a fan of reconciliation, created a rule that allows Senators to remove extraneous provisions in reconciliation legislation unless those provisions directly relate to changes in the levels of federal spending, taxes or debt. So the argument that the Health Care bill will not add any more spending to the budget is really a not true, because the Senate will bring "reconcile" the budget to the bill, instead of the bill to the budget.

Bertha, the Rolodex and Patrick Gaspard


Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN has the office, cell phone, home number and private personal email address of Patrick Gaspard, the man who holds the same position in the Obama administration as Karl Rove in the Bush administration. In addition to Patrick, Bertha has his brother, Michael Gaspard, who works for the Advance Group, ACORN's lobbying organization.

Patrick Gaspard was the Executive Vice President for the SEIU until Obama asked Gaspard to become his Presidential Campaign's National Political Director. Once in the White House, Gaspard became Obama's Director of the Office of Political Affairs.

Gaspard's official responsibility is to provide the president with an accurate assessment of the political dynamics affecting the work of his administration, and to remain in close contact with power brokers around the country to help push the president's agenda. He is the man who told New York Governor David Paterson not to run for re-election and then Obama's 'people' leaked it to the press.

Brother Michael Gaspard is a lobbyist, who works for The Advance Group. The filings in the State of New York shows it represents several organizations that fight for social justice, minority rights, etc. It also represents the New York Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, or ACORN. Although the name is New York ACORN, the registered address is New Orleans, LA. The ACORN.

On Sunday, 09.20.09 Obama played ignorant of ACORN's investigation when he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "Frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money. Did he forget that he used to work for them? Did he forget that his campaign gave them $800,000?

Secret Plan for Healthcare

If you were watching 'On the Record' with Greta Van Susteren last night, she spoke briefly about the 'secret plan' the Senate is rumored to move health care through by using a seldom used parliamentary procedure.

As a hoarder of 'news information', and I remembered this article from a couple weeks ago published from the Heritage Foundation on 09.22.09:

Their plan is to proceed to a House passed non-health care bill to provide a shell of legislation to give Obamacare a ride to the House and then to the President's desk. Here's the secret part: the Senate would pass healthcare reform as an amendment to a completely unrelated bill so the Senate and House could act quickly and without further debate.

Right now, the Senate Finance Committee is in the midst of marking up health care reform legislation. Due to Senate procedure, what they are actually marking up is a 200+ page conceptual framework of the actual legislation, not a real bill. That means that not only has no Senator even read the bill but, there is a high probability that the bill hasn't even been written yet.

Here is the 4 stop secret plan:

1. The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus' bill. Baucus has not unveiled final legislation and admendments are being added. Many Senators are upset that they don't have a final language for a bill, yet they sit in Committee
marking up a draft document that is not in the form of legislative language.

2. Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
(HELP) Committee. This was Kennedy's bill, which passed the HELP Committee on July 15, 2009, on a party line vote. Remember, most Senators will still not know what they voted for in Finance Committee.

3. Senator Reid will then move to proceed to HR 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This was the bill passed by the House in the wake of AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senative Legislative Calendar. Reid will move to proceed, and he will need 60 votes to act on this bill. After the motion is approved, he will then offer a complete substitute bill purportedly including the combined Senate HELP and Finance Committee products. This means that the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been sitting in the Senate for months.

4. For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 57 Democrats, 2 Independents (Senators Lieberman and Sanders) and a replacement for Kennedy.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill, without changes, and Obama will be presented with his healthcare reform. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House may consider using reconciliation to pass the legislation

Finance Committee in actions: Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus' statement in the markup meeting before he voted against the Rockefeller amendment to add public option to the health care bill.

Does this sound like a transparent, bipartisan and effective way to change the way millions of Americans get their healthcare? Only to the socialists.