Channeling Your Inner Banana II: The Indoctri-NATION

June 26th I wrote a blog entitled, “Getting in Touch with your Inner Banana” (https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/) in which I espoused about the coming more than just leanings of Banana Republic Dictatorship that our current President seems to aspire to.

Well, it’s Time for a sequel.

But first a word about his friends in the Ministry of Truth (The Mainstream Media).

The TV networks have aggressively demonstrated their dislike of Arizona’s state law “cracking down on illegal immigrants,” a law that “pits neighbor against neighbor.” An MRC review of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC from April 23 to July 25 found the networks have aired 120 stories with an almost ten-to-one tilt against the Arizona law (77 negative, 35 neutral, 8 positive).

The soundbite count was also tilted over the last three months — 216 to 107, or an almost exact two-to-one disparity. Network anchors and reporters sided against defenders of border control and championed sympathetic illegal aliens and their (usually American-born) children. In 120 stories, they never described “immigrants rights activists” as liberals or on the left.


Between them, the three networks described the Arizona law as “controversial” on 27 occasions, despite its popularity in opinion polls. The Obama administration’s decision to sue file a lawsuit against Arizona to crush the law was never described as “controversial.”

These are the Journo-Lists who profess to be “journalists” that are fair and objective. They are anything but.

They are toadies for their guy and their ideology. Nothing more, Nothing less than full on indoctrination.

The networks highlighted the “army” of protesters against the Arizona law and ignored their sometimes radical connections. As with sympathetic media coverage of large amnesty rallies in 2006, none of the stories allowed anyone to suggest it was improper for illegal aliens to petition the government whose laws they’re breaking or cancel out the votes of law-abiding citizens.

On May 30, ABC anchor David Muir asked, “Will an army of protesters be heard?” Reporter Jeremy Hubbard began his story for World News: “In their most massive numbers yet, a deluge of adversaries rally and rail against what could soon be the law of the land in Arizona.”

Network correspondents routinely mourned how illegal aliens didn’t feel welcome in Arizona, and felt they had to move back to Mexico or other friendlier states. On July 8, NBC reporter Lee Cowan sympathized with Marcial Bolanos, who didn’t think Arizona was a good place any more. “He took his 15-year-old son out of school and is headed back to Mexico, which brings Hugo to tears. But you’re really going to miss your friends?” Hugo said “Yeah.” The networks didn’t apply this blatant emotional appeal on behalf of families who’ve lost loved ones in crimes committed by illegal aliens.

You get one sob story after another, emotional appeals about heartless Arizonans who want to destroy “immigrant” (not illegal immigrant) families and friends.

Only Fox as far as I can see ever mentions Richard Krentz, the farmer who was murdered on his own land by drug smugglers as a victim. they even talked to his widow. If they do mention him, it is only in passing.

Take ABC News:  Ranchers have seen cattle slaughtered and pulled apart by hungry people stealing across the border, and one resident, Robert Krentz, may have been shot dead by an alleged illegal immigrant as he patrolled his land last month.

They tracked the killers all the way to the Mexican Border, by the way.

Then the media always follows up with their own lies, damn lies and statistics.

The U.S. Border Patrol says apprehensions along the Arizona-Mexico frontier are up 6 percent from October to April.

The Arizona Republic went on to report that, “according to the Border Patrol, Krentz is the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency’s Tucson sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol’s nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border.”

So it’s no big deal. Nothing to see here. But then again, he was white, so not much sympathy there. 😦

In 18 of 120 stories, the networks mentioned the public opinion polls, in which broad majorities favor the Arizona law. One poll question the networks didn’t ask was if it might seem odd for the Obama administration to sue Arizona for trying to enforce immigration laws, but would not sue cities that vowed to ignore immigration laws, which call themselves “sanctuary cities.”

A Rasmussen poll found 54 percent favored the Justice Department suing “sanctuary cities,” and 61 percent favored cutting off federal aid to them. But the three networks haven’t used the words “sanctuary city” since 2007, when it was a hot topic in the Republican primary debates. It was never mentioned, so was never described as “controversial.” (MRC)

So upwards of 70% of the American People are for Arizona, but the Ministry of Truth Mainstream Media is not. So they continue to hammer the propaganda home.

Just like the media of a dictator.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken after the judge’s Tuesday ruling, finds that 59% favor passage of an Arizona-like immigration law in their state, marking little change from earlier this month. Just 32% oppose such a law.

Support for the building of a fence along the Mexican border has reached a new high, and voters are more confident than ever that illegal immigration can be stopped.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of U.S. voters now believe the United States should continue to build a fence on the Mexican border. That’s up nine points from March when the Obama administration halted funding for the fence and the highest level of support ever.

Support for the fence is strong across all demographic groups. But while 76% of Mainstream voters think the United States should continue to build the fence, 67% of the Political Class are opposed to it.

So what you have is a Mainstream Media that reports the news the way they want to hear it and the way they want you to think about it.

It’s Propaganda.

********

AMNESTY II

With Congress gridlocked on an immigration bill, the Obama administration  is considering using a back door to stop deporting many illegal immigrants – what a draft government memo said could be “a non-legislative version of amnesty.”

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads. (see below)

The memo, addressed to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and written by four agency staffers, lists tools it says the administration has to “reduce the threat of removal” for many illegal immigrants who have run afoul of immigration authorities.

“In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear,” the staffers wrote in the memo, which was obtained by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.

The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.

Chris Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said drafting the memo doesn’t mean the agency has embraced the policy and “nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions.”

“As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system,” he said in an e-mail statement. “We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.”

He said the Homeland Security Department “will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”

The memo does talk about targeting specific groups of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Grassley said it confirms his fears that the administration is trying an end-run around Congress.

“This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a backdoor amnesty plan,” Mr. Grassley said.
The memo acknowledges some of the tools could be costly and might even require asking Congress for more money.

At one point, the authors acknowledge that widespread use of “deferred action” – or using prosecutorial discretion not to deport someone – would be “a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’ ”

The authors noted several options for deferred action, including targeting it to students who would be covered by the DREAM Act, a bill that’s been introduced in Congress.

In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers.

“I don’t know of any plans. I think we have discussed, as we always do, the tools available to us and whether the deployment of any of those tools could achieve a more fair and efficient use or application of the immigration law,” he said.

He acknowledged, though, that he was not aware that those powers had ever been used before on a categorical basis.

Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who queried Mr. Mayorkas on the subject, warned him against pursuing that strategy.

“I think it would be a mistake for the administration to use administrative action, like deferred action on a categorical basis, to deal with a large number of people who are here without proper legal documents to regularize their status without Congress’ participation. I will just say that to you for what it’s worth,” Mr. Cornyn, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary immigration, border security and citizenship subcommittee, told Mr. Mayorkas.

“The American public’s confidence in the federal government’s ability and commitment to enforce our immigration laws is at an all-time low,” Mr. Cornyn said in a statement. “This apparent step to circumvent Congress – and avoid a transparent debate on how to fix our broken immigration system –  threatens to further erode public confidence in its government and makes it less likely we will ever reach consensus and pass credible border security and immigration reform.”

After reports earlier this year that the agency was working on these sorts of plans, Senate Republicans, led by Mr. Grassley, have sent letters to President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for details.

In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)

Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.

With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.

The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.

Mind you this Memo was 11 Pages long!

Grassley says it is “ridiculous” to think a memo containing this kind of detail was drawn up without specific direction from someone in the administration. “Bureaucrats don’t write memos like that for the fun of it,” he said.

This is not a school grade writing exercise, after all.

And the memo seeks to out ‘touchy-feely’ ’emotional’ exemptions. So if you want to object to them you’re just a heartless, mean and cruel, uncaring bastard.

Sound familiar? 🙂

UPDATE: USCIS has released a statement on the memo:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.

Don’t mind us, we just write 11-page detailed judicial memos as way of just chewing the fat, nothing to see here.

Given the backroom secrecy that has been “transparent” in this administration shouldn’t the fact that they are even discussing ways to circumvent Congress worry you?

Yes, they should.

Much like the “promises” made about Health Care reform which we know now from sworn testimony to be false.

So doesn’t that sound like he and his apparatchiks are getting in even more touch with their Inner Banana (Dictatorship)?

It does to me.

Beyond the confines of the courtroom, however, that question is all that the controversy over S.B. 1070 is about: Do we as a country want to enforce the immigration laws or not? It’s time to answer that question.

And is the Government of The People, By the People and For the The People going to perish under a propaganda and legal parsers onslaught with the willing compliance of the touchy-feely Fifth Column Ministry of Truth Media? 😦

That is the question.

I Can See Liberal Insanity From My House!

This ditty would be unbelievable if you were are a sane, rational person, but we are talking about The Left: (kfyi.com)

Teaching “Kids” Graffiti to Protest SB1070

Unbelievable! I’m not sure what I’m more flabbergasted by:

1) That they would teach kids to use graffiti to protest;
2) That the YWCA thinks a class mixing 13 and 24 year old “kids” is a good idea;

3) That the YWCA has a “Racial Justice Director.”

So I wonder how many of the graduates of this course are down by the Madison street jail chaining themselves to Jail??

But don’t worry, And no indoctrination was applied.

It wasn’t “biased” and it was “fair”. 🙂

****************

At a demonstration Wednesday in Mexico City against Arizona's law. ASSOCIATED PRESSAt a demonstration Wednesday in Mexico City against Arizona’s law. ASSOCIATED PRESS

Mexico’s government gloated triumphantly after a federal judge’s injunction blocked Arizona’s immigration law. But it’s no victory for Mexico. In fact, Mexico’s leaders ought to be mortified.

As radical immigration activists crowed with glee and the Obama administration claimed victory, Mexico’s government joined the applause.

Calling Judge Susan Bolton’s injunction Wednesday “a step in the right direction,” Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa declared: “The government of Mexico would like to express its recognition for the determination demonstrated by the federal government of the United States and the actions of the civil organizations that organized lawsuits against the SB 1070 law.”

First, Mexico encourages illegal immigration to the U.S. Oh, it says it doesn’t, but it prints comic book guides for would-be illegal immigrants and provides ID cards for illegals once they get here. In Arizona alone, Mexico keeps five consulates busy.

That’s not out of love for its own citizens, but because Mexicans send cash back to Mexico that helps finance the government.

Instead of selling its wasteful state-owned oil company or getting rid of red tape to create jobs in Mexico, Mexico spends the hard currency from remittances. It fails to look at why its citizens leave.

According to the Heritage Foundation-Wall Street Journal 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, Mexico’s big problem is — no shock — government corruption, where it ranks below the world average.

That’s where Mexico’s cartels come in.

Mexico’s encouragement of illegal immigration undercuts its valiant war against its smuggling cartels. The cartels’ prowess and firepower have made them the only ones who can smuggle effectively across the border. U.S. law enforcers say they now control human-smuggling on our southern border.

Feed them immigrants and they grow more cash-rich — and right now, immigrant smuggling is about a third of the cartels’ income. (IBD)

And the remittance payments have to continue so it’s not in the government’s interest to REALLY do something.

But we, the ones who are against illegal immigration are the racists and the nazis! 🙂

***********************************

Imagine this being said by ANYONE other than a Liberal:

President Obama waded into the national race debate in an unlikely setting and with an unusual choice of words: telling daytime talk show hosts that African-Americans are “sort of a mongrel people.”

The president appeared on ABC’s morning talk show “The View” Thursday, where he talked about the forced resignation of Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, his experience with race and his roots.

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: “We are sort of a mongrel people.”

“I mean we’re all kinds of mixed up,” Obama said. “That’s actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it.”

Obama noted “there’s still a reptilian side of our brain” that leads people to not trust others “if somebody sounds different or looks different.”

But we, crackers, are the the racists!!! 🙂

*******************

This, also from the View, is hilarious : “My hope is that I’ve tried to set a tone in the debate that says, ‘Look, we can disagree without being disagreeable,'” Obama said.

Bwah Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

And I’m sure in his own mind he believes it. Cognitive Dissonance is rampant of the Left.

Another “hope” crushed. 🙂

So we need change in November. 🙂

The Empire Strikes Back

Episode V

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

It is a dark time for the
Rebellion. Although the Government
By the People for the The People
has been nearly destroyed,
Imperial troops have driven the
Rebel forces from their hidden
base and pursued them across
the country.

Evading the dreaded Imperial
Media a group of freedom
fighters led by Gov. Jan Brewer
has established a new secret
base on the remote desert oasis
of  Phoenix, AZ.

The evil lord Darth Holder
obsessed with finding New
Voters for his Emperor has
dispatched thousands of
Trial Lawyers into the far
reaches of the desert…

<<cuhh huah>>  <<cuhh huah>>  <<cuhh huah>> <<cuhh huah>> <<cuhh huah>> <<cuhh huah>>

The lawyers for the for The InJustice Department fanned across the desert with their allies from the American Communist Liberals Union (ACLU), SEIU, The Raza, Somos America, MeCHA, MSNBC, The Los Angeles Times, and others.

“I’m hunting Wacists!” Stormtrooper  E. Fudd was heard to say.

Then they found their base, SB 1070.

And they launched an all-out assault against the rebels strong hold.

The Imperial Walkers of  “outraged” minorities , out-of-state agitators, and Union stormtroopers descended on the based armed with their sanctimony and their signs carrying their race cards in their media pockets.

The base was taken temporarily but the rebels themselves escaped.

Though they were temporarily beaten, battered, and bruised, they lived to fight another day.

For after all, the Empire’s main weapon was the dreaded RACIST CANNON, able to fire invectives of pure hatred and partisanship.

But  not all hope was lost for the Rebels.

For the people were on their side….

Darth Holder, minion of the Emperor Himself, was heard to proclaim that just because the Empire has no interest in securing the border doesn’t mean the individual governors can usurp Imperial power and do his job for or with him.

IF THE EMPIRE WANTS TO IGNORE BORDER SECURITY YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISAGREE!

<<cuhh huah>>  <<cuhh huah>>  <<cuhh huah>> <<cuhh huah>> <<cuhh huah>> <<cuhh huah>>

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO “HELP” or  “ASSIST” or otherwise burden or force the Empire into DOING IT’S JOB!

I AM EMPEROR OBAMA, What I say goes. Period.

IF WE WANT TO IGNORE BORDER SECURITY, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO OUR JOB FOR US!

We have 12 million new potential Democrats and millions of Latinos lemmings to pander to. You  rebel scum are not allowed to disobey with the wishes of your Imperial Federal Masters!

So what if we ignore Voter Intimidation by The New Black Panthers.

So what if 60% of Americans were against our Imperial Health Care.

So, we said repeatedly and loudly that the Health Care Mandate wasn’t a Tax, but then said it was in court.

So what. We are are Supreme. We can do that!

So what if 60-70% of the Americans support the rebels in securing our border first.

So what if we still go on about “racial profiling” and create racial division as justification, but then in court assert none of it and go for SUPREMACY instead.

So what if we pass 2000+ page bills that “you have to pass them to know what’s in them” that we never read anyhow.

So what if the Journo-List Ministry of Truth lies.

Like it matters to us.

WE ARE THE EMPIRE and we Are SUPREME.

If you don’t like it, lump it!

And don’t you dare “over burden” us with doing our job!

We have too many rounds of golf to play. To many private concerts, 5-star luxury hotels to take over for our imperial vacations.

We are just better than you. Live with it.

We work really hard at dividing this country by class and race. It’s exhausting!

Judge Bolton: “requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is check.” She additionally found that the burdensome verification requirement “will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.”

Judge Bolton wrote in her stay that “preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced.” She adds in her 36-page ruling “There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens.” She concludes that “By enforcing this statue, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

Don’t you dare burden the Empire with actually doing their job!!! HOW DARE YOU!!

You do have to feel sorry for the Empire in this sense:

They have know had to admit their own incompetence on National Security and that doing their job is too “burdensome” for them.

They have had to admit they told a bold faced lie about the Health Care Mandate being a Tax.

They have had to admit that they are racially biased (The New Black Panther Case) and are not interested in anyone who isn’t their “base”. No crackers need apply.

Every time they say they are going to be “transparent” they become more secretive.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.” Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

I guess that means that Congress and the SEC are too big to fail. 🙂

Every problem or criticism of them they think can be solved by unfettered use of the RACE CARD.

The “culture of corruption” the Democrats ran on in 2006 and 2008 turns out to be like Luke Skywalker in the dream cave sequence, it turns out to be THEM! 🙂

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday noted that it was Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), not him, who promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington.

“I didn’t use that term,” Hoyer said when asked if he thinks Democrats have “drained the swamp.”  “What I believed and continue to believe is that we have made the ethics process work, and we have made it work in a meaningful way.”(The Hill)

Yes, FOR THEM and AGAINST YOU! 🙂

They know that raising taxes in a recession that hasn’t gotten better despite all their claims to the contrary but they can’t not do it because they have to demonize “the rich” and have no choice but to stick it to everyone because of it.

The Ideology is The ideology.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Empire must Strike Back!

The Empire Must be Supreme!

All Hail The Emperor!

The Emperor has No Clothes! 🙂

T-1 Day and Counting

And I wholeheartedly agree… :)

*****************************************************

Update: The judge has issued an injunction that guts the law.

So, please bow to your Masters, The Federal Government.

If you don’t like what we are doing or NOT doing too bad because we are the Federal Government and we can do anything we want and you can’t do anything about it.

You have no power.

HAIL BIG BROTHER!

************************

LET LOOSE THE LEFTISTS!

Every fringe loon, union thug, and race baiting whacko is going to be on parade for the Ministry of Truth to pump up their race war today and probably for awhile.

And add in their Class Warfare and you see where this going.

But the main thing will be the sanctimonious “outrage” and the freak show of crazies (aka “protesters”) that will be paraded out like they are the second coming of Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

But this was interesting:

Sir Elton John has waded into the debate over a new immigration law in Arizona, condemning artists who boycott the state over the controversy.

Acts including Rage Against the Machine, Kanye West and Maroon 5 are all refusing to perform in the state until officials reverse the controversial legislation.

But John has refused to join the protest and he reportedly slammed the campaigners during a concert at the Tucson Arena.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, John told the crowd of 8,800: “We are all very pleased to be playing in Arizona. I have read that some of the artists won’t come here. They are (expletive)”

“Let’s face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what’s the (expletive) with these people?”(FOX)

CNN: The protests will include busloads of labor union members from Los Angeles who oppose Senate Bill 1070 because they believe it promotes racial profiling,

They plan to dare law enforcement in Phoenix, Arizona, to put SB 1070 to the test, according to Maria Elena Durazo, one of the organizers of the rally.

“We will not be carrying ‘papers,’ ” said Durazo, of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “We will let them know we are coming, and we will tell them: Arrest us for being brown or black, arrest us for being suspicious.”

Union Thugs and crazies. Just what we need. 😦

The protesters include immigrant students, religious leaders, day laborers and members of several unions including the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the Teamsters and the Utility Workers of America Union.

The far Left Phoenix New Times: If ever there was a time for people to raise freakin’ hell in this city, July 29 is the day. As we all know, that’s when SB 1070, Arizona’s new “breathing-while-brown law” is slated to start harassing Latinos….

So you think you can reason with the Left still?? 🙂

Think the Mainstream Media even cares about it’s Journo-List bias?

Now if there is a decision later today, if it’s not a total repudiation of SB 1070 the whackos will stay.

Even then, they’ll just party like is 1799.

The rhetoric and the distortions are at insane levels.

There are even idiots on the left who are going on about the 1993 Super Bowl Controversy as evidence we have been this racist state for years.

Naturally, facts don’t dent the sanctimonious emotional rhetoric of the left.

It would be nice if you mentioned in regards to the Super Bowl Controversy years ago that:
a) The Governor, Ev Mecham was a DEMOCRAT.
b) He was an idiot who got impeached.
c) He was fond of calling blacks “Pickaninny ”
d) and he insulted asians and everyone he could find.
e) HE says his AG told him he could get sued (hmmm…) if he allowed the holiday. That was crap, but that was his reason.

I guess they left that out.
Funny that….

So as the crazies and the baiters converge to have their Sanctimony Hate Fest we can be secure in the knowledge that our Lords and Masters at the Federal Government who wish their will to be the only will that they will protect us. 🙂

So what if they want everyone to ignore the problem. It’s not our place to question their authority to rule over us.

They can tell us what we can eat, where we can live, what we can say, when we must die for the greater good because they are just so much better than us and so much more powerful.

It’s all good.

Your Lord and Master Big Brother Barack and Big Sis Janet says so.

The Rise of the Eco-Migrant

The nuts on The Left are really getting desperate.

Global Warming crashed and burned with Climate gate where the corruption on the issue was exposed.

But the Left, losing on the immigration issue has come up with a new one.

If you don’t love illegal immigrants now, you’ll have even more because of GLOBAL WARMING!

So if we embrace global warming and illegal immigration we will be just fine. 🙂

Brought to you by National Geographic:

Disputes over illegal Mexican immigrants are already heating up in the United States, thanks in part to a new Arizona immigration law.
But global warming could bring the immigration issue to a boiling point in the coming decades, if a new study holds true.
According a new computer model, a total of nearly seven million additional Mexicans could emigrate to the U.S. by 2080 as a result of reduced crop yields brought about by a hotter, drier climate—assuming other factors influencing immigration remain unchanged.
“The model shows that climate-driven refugees could be a big deal in the future,” said study co-author Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Study co-author Oppenheimer acknowledged there are many uncertainties in his team’s model. But it’s important for scientists to investigate climate change-induced migration quantitatively, he said.

“This is the first time anybody’s built a model to do this,” Oppenheimer said. “It’s a simplification, and there are a lot of assumptions, but it’s the start of a learning process. As we learn more, the model will improve, and the numbers will get more reliable.”

You know what they say about assumptions. 🙂

And we’re just shooting in the dark and it’s complete speculation and it’s over simplified.

BUT YOU MUST TAKE IT SERIOUSLY!

“The takeaway message for me of this study is that there is indeed a relationship between changes in crop yield and the movement of people,” Smit said. “And to the extent that future climate change will introduce more of those stresses on yields, we can expect more pressures on the movement of people.”

It’s the birth of the ECO-Migrant!!

No Illegal Immigrants. No more Undocumented Immigrants. No more just plain Immigrants. They are now ECO-Migrants!!

Oh Dear!
Now if we deny them we are harming them AND the environment at the same time!!

OH NO!!!

Where’s my barf bag?….

In some sense, it may not matter whether the study is right or wrong.

The University of Ottawa’s McLeman, for example, argues that many of the things the U.S. could do to help Mexico adapt to global warming will also help improve the quality of life for many of Mexico’s poor.

“A lot of the things that we could be doing are things that we should be doing anyway,” he said.

“Even if it turns out that our future projections about climate change impacts aren’t right, it’s still a good investment. I don’t see any downside to it.”

Come down here and say that ya Canuck!

So it doesn’t matter if we are right or wrong, we should just do it anyways!

But if we can scare people into doing it, so much the better! It’s the right thing to do.

Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission said Monday it is sending inspectors to U.S. border crossings to monitor deportations that might result if Arizona’s new immigration law goes into effect as planned Thursday.

The law is being challenged by the U.S. government in court, but the federal judge hearing the case hasn’t indicated whether she might agree to the challenge’s request that the measure be put on hold.

The government’s rights commission said monitors will be stationed at border gates in Tijuana across from California, Nogales next to Arizona and Ciudad Juarez and Reynosa across from Texas to ensure migrants are treated properly.

The implementation of the Arizona Law SB1070 represents a threat to migrants’ full exercise of their human rights,” the commission said in a statement. “The law violates the principles of nondiscrimination, equality before the law and freedom from arbitrary arrest.”

Go back to my blogs on Mexican Immigration law and lets compare apples to tomatillos. 🙂

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/what-would-mexico-do/

And the bad economy and the anti-business attitudes are not to blame for stores closing in Phoenix, it’s SB1070!!

At least according to the open borders LA Times and their latest sob story of evil racist Arizona.

Every time a customer buys some of the large fabric tote bags from the Dollar Store at 43rd Avenue and Thomas Road, Najmuddin Katchi sees another piece of his business vanish.

The purchase of the briefcase-sized shoulder bags means that another one of Katchi’s customers, mostly Latino immigrants, is packing to leave the state before what is touted as the nation’s toughest law against illegal immigrants takes effect July 29.

Katchi’s store isn’t the only business suffering. The vast shopping center that holds his small shop is almost empty. The Food City supermarket closed this spring. Then the furniture shop. Then the pizzeria.

It’s not the economy, it’s racism! It’s Global Warming!

It’s F*cking Maryvale! a part of Phoenix known for crime and poverty and the like.

A shift in police philosophy included embedding Phoenix Gang Unit officers in the precinct, placing more sophisticated resources regularly in what one crime analysis described as “an area saturated with gang members.(Wikipedia)

Guess what kind of Gangs….Come one, guess… 🙂

The giant apartment complex across the street, once brimming with tenants, is two-thirds vacant. Katchi is behind on his rent.

And it’s all them damn racists fault!

It couldn’t be because Maryvale is a crappy neighborhood now could it?

Nothing to do with 10% unemployment, debt, deficits, and bad economic policies. Nope, not that!

It’s Racism!

It’s Global Warming!

“The business is broken,” said Katchi, who has operated his shop at this intersection for 14 years. “After the 29th of July, what happens? Maybe I have to close the store.”

One Note: I am sorry to see a person lose their business but in this town that has been going on on a large scale for 3 years now. A Food City (a lower-end supermarket) near to me closed. Was that because of racism?

No that was a year ago. And it was because the city condemned all the houses in the immediate area and that killed the business. And the Checker Auto Parts and several others.

So the argument is specious, but it’s typical of a liberal media biased story that is more about emotion than logic and facts.

Where I live the housing boom was at it’s peak and you can see where it came to screeching halt.

Was that SB1070? Or the economy.

For the last 20 years, Arizona has been one of the fastest-growing states in the nation. It depends on an expanding population to power its economy, which relies heavily on the construction of new houses.

And guess what the “anyone with a pulse can buy a house” Liberals did to it?

And still do to it because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their “toxic” assets and policies were completely ignored by the recent financial reform which is supposed to prevent this from happening again. So by ignoring the real problem, it won’t happen again. 🙂

At the corner of 43rd and Thomas, it’s hard to determine how much of the neighborhood’s woes stem from Arizona’s immigration laws and how much from the state’s economy, battered by a once red-hot housing market that cooled.

But the whole point of writing this is to say the point is evil racists and SB1070, so don’t wimp out now.

Katchi’s revenue was already sagging before April 23, when Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law. Since then, sales have plummeted.

And of course this is logical correlation. NOT!

In adopting the legislation the state embarked on a grand experiment — trying to drive out hundreds of thousands of its residents by what the law calls “attrition through enforcement.”

Yeah, that was written into the law…right…

“The economy’s already bad, but on top of it [SB 1070] is like a bullet in the head to us,” said Osameh Odeh, 35, whose Eden Wear clothing store was empty one recent afternoon. “People don’t come out of their houses anymore.”

We’re going to get you my pretty and you’re little dog too! 🙂  <<maniacal laughter!>>

But hey, if they want to go somewhere else and be some else’s problem, I say don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. How about LA,SF, Denver or New Mexico they love you there.

The law requires police to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and also suspect are in the country illegally. Civil rights groups and the Obama administration have sued to stop the law from taking effect, and a federal judge heard arguments in the case Thursday.

The departure of illegal immigrants, proponents of SB 1070 argue, can only help Arizona’s economy.

Works for me.

But we still have to secure the border first.

And just to round out the sob stories they throw in racial profiling and the tag at the end of the article:

“They don’t want Mexicans,” she said. “So we’ll leave.” (a legal Mexican-American shop owner).

No Journo-List bias here.

Twelve percent of second-generation Latino voters in the state say they support S.B. 1070, according to a recent Latino Decisions poll. That jumps to nearly 30 percent in the fourth generation.

Jesse Hernandez, a second-generation Mexican-American, a product of public housing and a proud Phoenix Republican, is one of those in Arizona who favor the law.

Hernandez says he knows many Latinos who feel just like he does.

“I just don’t like the fact that they’re going to say that an American Latino has the same concerns as a Latino from Mexico. No, we don’t,” Hernandez says.

Hernandez says his Mexican-born parents came to the U.S. after years of waiting at the border to secure papers. He says illegal immigrants need to get in line, just like they did.

“We don’t have time to be marching down the street waving the Mexican flag saying we want rights,” he says. “Because you know what? We did it the right way, and we have rights.”

“It’s like an African-American person forgot that two or three generations ago they were unable to vote, and they are direct descendants of slaves.”– one SB1070 opponent said.

The key here being generations ago.  NOT NOW.

I love how Liberal want to abuse the past to further their own politics–at least when it’s in their own interest that is and they can play the guilt card– but we won’t talk about how the Democrats  (especially Southern Democrats) were the one holding up the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960’s. Nope won’t go there. 🙂

So what we have is more emotion over logic and more hyperbole over facts.

But now have a new breed of excuses for illegal immigration, Environment- both economic and Global.

Rejoice, now not only are you a racist, but a heartless  and ignorant environmental destructor who wants to see the economy get even worse if we do something about ILLEGAL ENTRY into this country.

Isn’t that good to know. 🙂

Behind the Times

The Obama administration, headed up by a liberal dogma that has been trying to create it’s socialist utopia since Woodrow Wilson is not going to give up it’s sole dream of controlling everyone and everything ‘for their own good’ and “fairness”.

But it is curious that the Europeans who already went down this road in large part are starting to go back in our former direction.

It’s kind of like driving towards a massive accident and seeing people coming back from it bloodied and hurt, but you decide it can’t happen to me so you keep going anyhow.

That’s National Health Care now nearly 5 months after it was crammed down the throats of the American public in the single most partisan vote in memory.

Damn The Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!

LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. (London Times)

So like the G20 Summit where “austerity” was the watchword by the Europeans and Obama stood there stamping his foot demanding people spend even more.

Not only are the Democrats and their dream out of date they are out of step even with the people they still want to dance with.

They wanted to be them.

Now it’s too late.

But that won’t stop them, of course.

Zealots who have been waiting 80 years+ for this will not be so easily deterred.

But the effects of this are beginning.

MANDEVILLE, La.—Mark Baumann, a 44-year-old uninsured diabetic, sees in the Obama administration’s health-care law a future with stable coverage to pay for his insulin shots and blood tests.

That’s likely to come indirectly at the expense of his mother’s generous health-care plan.

Humana Inc., Mary Baumann’s insurer, intends to pare her “Medicare Advantage” plan to make up for the smaller government payments it will soon receive as a result of the new law, leaving her with higher costs or fewer services. On the table are beefed-up co-payments and premiums, as well as the loss of perks such as her free membership at a health club.

Most Americans know the overhaul is designed to cover the uninsured, a decades-long goal of Democrats. But it also represents a change in how the government spreads its social safety net underneath Americans. Already, it’s creating tensions that are a harbinger of debates to come.

Since the creation of Social Security and Medicare, younger workers have funded programs for the elderly. It’s a compact in which workers paid for retirees with the understanding that they’d be looked after by the generation behind them.

The health overhaul diverges by tapping a program for the elderly to help provide insurance to 32 million Americans of younger generations. Nearly half the funding for the law is supposed to come from paying lower fees to hospitals, insurers and other health-care providers that participate in Medicare, the federal insurance program for Americans age 65 and older, as well as younger disabled people.

The 44 million Americans on Medicare won’t see changes to their guaranteed benefits under the law. But of those, 11.3 million on Medicare Advantage plans, a public-private hybrid of the type used by Ms. Baumann, who is 79, are likely to begin seeing extra benefits go away as soon as next year. Medicare Advantage cuts are slated to pay for 15% of the health-care law’s tab.

The trims mark the leading edge of a spending shift that could broaden as lawmakers grapple with a deficit expected to hit $1.47 trillion this year. Left unchanged, Medicare and Social Security will consume half of all federal spending by 2035, up from about one third today, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And remember, by recess appointment an NHS-loving administrator is the head of Medicare.

And if, as predicted by many, including me, that private health insurance is driven completely to extinction then you’ll have health cost also in that GDP soup and with already half the people in this country not paying any taxes it does very bleak.

But at least it’s “fair”. 🙂

And, of course, the solution that will be published after the election by Obama’s “deficit commission” is a forgone conclusion, The VAT TAX and other taxes.

Then came Financial “reform” where one of the biggest cause of the problem, just like in Health Care (Trial Lawyers anyone?), were ignored because of partisan politics — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And then with the massive tax increases, even on the poor, slated for Jan 1,2011 you have the perfect storm.

But the Democrats will not change course. You know that. I know now that. They know that.

Damn the Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!

They don’t care how many European train wrecks occur.

It’s their time and they will do it anyhow!

For “fairness” and “equality” and “social justice”! 🙂

Meanwhile, the rationing the Democrats say will not happen here are happening in their beloved NHS, acocrding to the  liberal Sun Telegraph newspaper:

Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

And now back to US…

We badly need to, over time and very gradually, reallocate resources from the elderly to younger families and their children,” said Isabel Sawhill, senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

“I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice,” Nancy-Ann DeParle, who runs the White House’s Office of Health Reform, says of Medicare Advantage plans. “But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term.”

Sun Telegraph: The Government has promised to protect the overall budget of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation increases, but said the service must make “efficiency savings” of up to £20 billion by 2014, which would be diverted back to the front line.

Brother from another socialist mother? 🙂

Dr Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was “incredibly worried” about the disclosures.

Dr Carter said: “Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed.

Trust boards are the ones who make the health care calls now.

Much like the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology  that was in the Stimulus Bill.

And we won’t even go over the Food Police again this time.

Sun Telegraph: On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care trust (PCT) in London agreed more than £50 million of savings in two years. The plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill.

As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition.

Bill Gillespie, the trust’s chief executive, said patients would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if that was their choice, and would be given support in their homes.

The president told the {New York Times in 2008}magazine that the chronically ill and elderly represent 80 percent of American healthcare costs, and said, “(T)here is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”

“And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance,” he added.

That “independent group” turns out to be the government, now run by him. Funny how that worked out. 🙂

But the president questioned whether his now-deceased grandmother should have received her hip replacement while suffering a terminal illness.

Recounting the dilemma, Obama said, “(T)he question was, does she get hip replacement surgery even though she was fragile enough that they weren’t sure how long she would last (or) whether she could get through the surgery.”

“I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time,” Obama said.

This was not the first time the president had used his grandmother to illustrate his point on health care. In an April 2008 interview with The New York Times Magazine, Obama suggested much of the cost of health care in America comes from the elderly and those with chronic illness.

“That’s where you get into some very difficult moral issues,” Obama said – specifically considering whether “in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.”

This was BEFORE he became president mind you. But the Journo-List inspired Media was not going to let you dwell on it.

2009 Newsweek article on the “The Five biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate”:

What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions “are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies,” says Dr. Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

Donald Berwick? Where have I heard that name recently.

Oh yeah, he’s the guy who was appointed by Obama as Head of Medicare and Medicaid without Senate approval by a recess appointment and he’s an admitted lover of the NHS.

Gee, that couldn’t be a coincidence now could it? 🙂

The {Health Care} law will spend $938 billion over a decade, mostly to expand coverage to lower-income Americans. To finance that, there will be $455 billion coming from cuts in government payments to health-care providers that serve patients on Medicare and two other federal programs. The hardest hit—to the tune of $136 billion—will be private insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans.

The payment cuts to Medicare Advantage begin in 2012.

“With the president being younger, my biggest concern is that we don’t mean anything,” said Sandy Reed, a 61-year-old who has a Medicare Advantage plan because she qualifies as disabled. “We’re disposable.”

‘Death Panels’ indeed…

And it has come out on the Daily Caller in their further investigation of the Journo-List scandal that the Mainstream media were in full bore mode of destruction when Gov. Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate.

All that savagery was plotted out.

So what you do when your opponent speaks the truth to power, destroy her.

So that’s why the ‘death panels’ comment was so widely and uniformly from left mocked, dismissed and discredited.

To this very day she is the most hated woman in America by the Left.

Most of the rest will be funded by new levies, including taxes on health-care companies, a higher Medicare payroll tax for wealthy Americans and a tax on high-value insurance plans. Critics of the law say its total cost is likely higher than advertised.

But it’s not like the Democrats actually care.

Their one and only shot at injecting their socialist cancer, that they’ve been waiting since their grandparents time in many cases, is all that matters.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

But at least it’s “fair”. 🙂

A New Hope & Change

“If you are going through hell, keep going.” –—  Winston Churchill

Despite putting up some great blogs, in my opinion, this month professionally it has been the worst in probably 20 years.

I was so stressed out I barely slept.

I can barely eat.

I have visions of foreclosure, bankruptcy and ruin, dancing in my dreams.

But I have had a good cry.

But I am not about to quit.

I may not win, but if I give it my all, then that at least is consolation.

But take nothing for granted.

I used to.

And that is what I would tell the Republicans right about now.

They are facing an enemy that goes by the rule of there are no rules.

The end justifies the means.

Winning is the only acceptable outcome. Morals and ethics mean nothing.

They are a hindrance.

For winning is power. And power is all that matters.

But the Republicans have also got to bring hope back.

The “Hope & Change” that was stolen from us by the Democrats.

And they can’t fail.

It’s a very high bar in a very partisan raptor-eat-piranha world.

The Mainstream Media is most definite NOT on your side.

So you are going to have to get to the people. Expecting the Mainstream Media to be anything else but totally in the tank for the Democrats is a mistake.

I still have to pick myself up. The Punches are going to still be coming.

Hell awaits.

But you just have to keep going.

Keep Believing.

Keep Hope alive.

And for a devout pessimist like myself that is a tough task.

But it’s necessary.

It must be fought.

And to regain the soul of this country that has been invaded by the terminal cancer of Liberal socialism, it’s a tough disease to fight.

But if you don’t all hope is lost.

The Country is the Titanic, she’s hit an iceberg of cold socialism, the question is will she sink?

That is the question.

And the vote on November 2nd by you and me determines that.

No equivocation. This is do or die for Old Glory.

Are we a nation of innovations and rugged individualists and idealists or are we a country that says all I want is the spoils but none of pain or responsibility for it.

Gimme….Gimme…Gimme

What’s mine is mine and what’s your is also mine because I deserve it!

Do you earn it or are you entitled to it?

Is the spoils of others’ labors superior to the spoils of your own?

Is it all about you?

Are you center of your own universe and everything MUST spin around you and do your bidding and if it doesn’t you are entitled to it anyhow.

Because it’s only “fair”.

Or are you Galileo who dares to be the heretic against the tidal wave of political correctness, fear, and division.

We are in the midst of a great Un-Civil War and one of the greatest speechs in the history of mankind is very approriate at this time.

The Gettysburg Address By Abraham Lincoln  (Modernized)

Eleven score and fourteen years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal regardless of differences.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. The politically correct wolves are at the door and their teeth are bared.

We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

The Voting Booth. That most hallowed of ground.

But in a larger sense we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

November 2, 2010.

It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

AMEN!


The Ideological Deficit

The Democrats have found a new “religion”.

Complain about spending too much, only if it’s against their ideology.

And for no other reason.

Take the “Bush” Tax cuts.

The democrats know that the tax increases from this will hurt the economy badly, but because it’s Bush, they can’t stomach extending them so they play the “deficit” card which is hilarious since they just spent weeks bashing the Republicans for being “mean” and “heartless” because they wanted the unemployment benefits extension paid for instead of adding to the deficit!

In the end, the Democrats just passed it anyhow.

So they can raise the deficit for unemployment benefits (now going over 100 weeks straight with the average being 37) but keeping a tax cut with Satan’s name attached to it is not worth adding to their massive spending.

New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.

That’s taking partisan ideologicial politics to a new low.

The Democrats are effectively saying, if it doesn’t benefit them politically it’s not worth doing.

I also think they want to saddle the Republicans with it.

They know they are going to lose massively in November so what better way to play it than stick your opponent with the mess and then when the 2012 tax season rolls around and people are hit full-on in the face with the 2011 income tax increases you can have “sympathy” for them in the 2012 Presidential election and make it look like it was all the Republicans fault.

Or Bush’s fault.

Now is that too cynical?  I think not.

Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something’s done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax — that will be real killers.

Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade.

But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. The effect this will have on hospital life-support systems is already a matter of conjecture.

Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn’t the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it’s not just the rich who will pay.

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.

Yes, it raises taxes on anyone who pays taxes, Period. Even the “poor”. So I guess he wants  to pander to the 47% who don’t pay taxes, women, and minorities in his apparatchik class and everyone else can just screw themselves…

But the damage doesn’t stop there.

The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33% — to 20% from 15%. The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% — a 164% increase.

Both the cap-gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8% Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000. Other tax hikes include: halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.

Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.

But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This “second wave” of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:

The Medicine Cabinet Tax. Americans, says ATR, “will no longer be able to use health savings account, flexible spending account, or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).”

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. “This provision of ObamaCare,” according to ATR, “increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10%.”

Brand Name Drug Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018. Beginning in 2019 it falls to $2.8 billion and stays there. And who pays the new drug tax? Patients, in the form of higher prices.

Economic Substance Doctrine. ATR reports that “The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks ‘economic substance.'”

A third and final (for now) wave, says ATR, consists of the alternative minimum tax’s widening net, tax hikes on employers and the loss of deductions for tuition:

• The Tax Policy Center, no right-wing group, says that the failure to index the AMT will subject 28.5 million families to the tax when they file next year, up from 4 million this year.

• “Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly deduct, or ‘depreciate’) equipment purchases up to $250,000,” says ATR. “This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be ‘depreciated.'”

• According to ATR, there are “literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place,” plus the loss of some tax credits. The research and experimentation tax credit will be the biggest loss, “but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.”

• The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be available and there will be limits placed on education tax credits. Teachers won’t be able to deduct their classroom expenses and employer-provided educational aid will be restricted. Thousands of families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.

Then there’s the tax on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance (the tax the administration initially said wasn’t a tax but now argues in court that it is) plus a 3.8% Medicare tax beginning in 2013 on profits made in real estate transactions by wealthier Americans.

Not all Americans may fully realize what’s in store come Jan. 1. But they should have a pretty good idea by the mid-term elections, and members of Congress might take note of our latest IBD/TIPP Poll (summarized above).

Fifty-one percent of respondents favored making the Bush cuts permanent vs. 28% who didn’t. Republicans were more than 4 to 1 and Independents more than 2 to 1 in favor. Only Democrats were opposed, but only by 40%-38%.

The cuts also proved popular among all income groups — despite the Democrats’ oft-heard assertion that Bush merely provided “tax breaks for the wealthy.” Fact is, Bush cut taxes for everyone who paid them, and the cuts helped the nation recover from a recession and the worst stock-market crash since 1929.

Maybe, just maybe, Americans remember that — and will not forget come Nov. 2. (IBD)

And there’s always the Tax that isn’t a Tax because it’s a “penalty” but in court it’s a Tax– The Health Care Mandate. 🙂

After all, known communist and fired “green Jobs czar” Van Jones recently said:

While the federal government sinks deeper into debt than any time since World War II, former White House “green jobs” adviser Anthony Van Jones said it was time to stop worrying about budget deficits and pressure Washington to take more money from American businesses to fund larger social and infrastructure projects.

“This is a rich country. We have plenty of money, and if you don’t believe me, ask Haliburton,” Jones told a group of progressive bloggers and activists at the Netroots Nation (Think Far Left Hatefest) convention Friday. “There’s plenty of money out there; don’t fall into the trap of this whole deficit argument.”

“The only question is how to spend it,” he added.

Speaking of Spending Remember TARP, that bailout that was supposed to save the universe and create jobs?

Well, not so much.

How’s that Troubled Asset Relief Program going? Not so well. A review of TARP found that homeowners aren’t avoiding foreclosure and the decisions to close car dealerships were politically based.

The Home Affordable Modification Program, infused last year with $50 billion in TARP money by the Obama administration, was supposed to help 3 million to 4 million mortgage holders with their problem loans.

But according to a government audit, it has failed to “put an appreciable dent in the foreclosure filings.”

Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, told Congress on Wednesday that fewer than 400,000 homeowners have had their mortgages permanently modified under the program.

“It’s just not a program that’s working for homeowners,” Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of a panel charged with overseeing the bailout, also told Congress on Wednesday.

“It’s not a program in some cases that’s working for investors. And most importantly, it’s not a program that’s working for the economy over all.”

Warren, who resides on the other side of the idea spectrum from us, said the problem with the program is “It’s too slow. It’s too small.”

But at least we have $20 Billion dollars in signs touting how great it is (each sign cost $10,000 a piece).

Her position is based on a faulty assumption: that the federal government, which is rife with fraud, waste and corruption, is able to effectively implement even a small program. She is expecting an unwieldy bureaucracy to do something that it cannot — and should not — do.

Another function of TARP, the auto dealership closing program, also took criticism in the review. More than 2,000 dealerships were closed as a cost-cutting measure in Washington’s bailout of Chrysler and General Motors. But the closings weren’t business decisions. They were political.

And they cost jobs.

“Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact,” said Barofsky’s 45-page report.

According to the audit, the Treasury Department, which administers TARP, simply failed to show how the dealership closings were “either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery.”

The Barofsky report says some GM “dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships.”

Further underscoring TARP’s institutional problems is Barofsky’s finding that the government has been throwing taxpayers’ money at the country’s financial system that it wasn’t authorized to spend.

“Indeed, the current outstanding balance of overall federal support for the nation’s financial system has actually increased more than 23% over the past year, from approximately $3 trillion to $3.7 trillion — the equivalent of a fully deployed TARP program,” says the report.

The money has been allocated “largely without congressional action, even as the banking crisis has, by most measures, abated from its most acute phases.” Worse, much of the unauthorized expenditures was doled out to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-government mortgage institutions that are largely responsible for the 2007-08 financial meltdown.

Fannie and Freddie were explicitly excluded from the “financial reform” package.

It’s no coincidence that TARP has been a big part of one of the ugliest economic eras in American history.

We wouldn’t be surprised if historians one day look back and find that TARP was a significant contributor to the depth and length of the current slump.

Unless you’re a Journo-List Media biased ideological “journalists” or historian that distorts the facts to suit Big Brother’s Ideological Agenda that is. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

It’s the Spin Zone

How you say something can effect how it’s perceived.

That is, if you can find it.

Take yesterday’s preliminary hearing on SB 1070.

The Los Angeles Times, which is an open borders pro-illegal newspaper opened with:

A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of a key part of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but did not say whether she would prevent the measure from taking effect next week.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said during a hearing that the provision that makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents apparently conflicts with a Supreme Court ruling that says states cannot create their own immigration registration systems.

John Bouma, a lawyer representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in the seven lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the measure, tried to convince Bolton otherwise. Then he gave up.

“I didn’t have the feeling I persuaded you last week either,” he said, referring to similar arguments on another lawsuit.

Sounds bad doesn’t it? But consider the source.

But my favourite that I’ve seen is good ole’ Katie Couric, CBS NEWS:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

If those words were written in Arizona today, they might include a footnote: just make sure they have their papers.

No bias here. 🙂

They also have stories on Neo-Nazis patrolling the border and a puff piece on the violence at the border that says it isn’t so bad.

Diminish,distract,and destroy. Liberal “journalism” in action.

Then you read The AP story on The Daily Caller:

PHOENIX (AP) — The judge who will decide whether Arizona’s new immigration law is constitutional hasn’t indicated whether she’ll put the statute on hold before it takes effect next week and had some pointed questions Thursday for challengers at two court hearings.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also went beyond dry legal analysis to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how that applies to the new law.

Without prodding from attorneys, the judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about immigrant and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She said the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona.

“You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored,” said Bolton, who didn’t issue a ruling after the two hearings.

Notice the Difference? 🙂

Now that couldn’t be media bias now could it?

Perish the thought! 🙂

Especially after the “Journolist” releases. 🙂

But I will at least say  it was nice to see this buried down at the bottom of the Times article:

“I guess we have some explanation of why we have so many [smugglers] and aliens unlawfully here,” Bouma said. “The federal government doesn’t want them prosecuted and doesn’t think the state should.”

🙂

But then it followed immediately with this liberal lie: Government statistics show that the Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants annually than the George W. Bush administration.

So what, he’s spent as much as Bush did in 8 years in 18 months. But you won’t here that from the Journo-List inspired liberal press.

But again, it’s the liberal Bush Derangement Syndrome coming back up like a bad case of acid reflux.

But then comes: Arizona is the favorite crossing point for illegal entrants from Mexico, and even though the numbers have dropped off during the recession, fears of violence from Mexican drug traffickers persist. Bouma noted a sign the federal Bureau of Land Management recently posted in the desert 30 miles south of Phoenix:

“Danger — Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended. Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area.”

Bolton said she had seen pictures of the sign, heavily publicized by Brewer, and that it was “awful.”

At the very end. Do you not think this was important?

Daily Caller:

Attorney John Bouma, who is defending the law on behalf of Gov. Jan Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them. They don’t want to know about them,” he said.

Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven’t demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts — not mere speculation — must be shown.

“In Arizona we have a tremendous Hispanic heritage. To think that everybody that’s Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned … defies reality,” Bouma said. “All this hypothetical that we’re going to go out and arrest everybody that’s Hispanic, look around. That’s impossible.”

Yeah, don’t tell the Ministry of Truth that there are Hispanics who are for SB1070, it will be another “Uncle Tom” moment, or is that “Uncle Jose”.

The New York Times opens with a picture of Hispanic Protesters…gee no bias there. 🙂

With just a week remaining before Arizona’s stringent new immigration law is set to take effect, a federal judge in Phoenix heard, for the first time, from Obama administration lawyers urging her to strike down the controversial legislation while dozens of demonstrators argued both sides outside the courthouse.

As protesters blocked traffic, chanted, sang, yelled and banged on bass drums, lawyers from the Justice Department and for the State of Arizona sparred over whether the law, known locally as SB1070, violates the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal law generally trumps state law. The federal judge, Susan R. Bolton, asked pointed questions of both sides, but made no ruling from the bench before adjourning at 3 p.m.

So it’s all about the protesters.

Edwin S. Kneedler, the lawyer for the federal government, argued that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration laws under the Constitution and that Arizona was, in essence, establishing its own immigration policy — which in some cases would be stricter than the federal law and does not take into account either humanitarian concerns or the government’s foreign policy goals.

<<Barf Bag on standby>>

Touchy-feely “feel good” Lies. Gee, the liberal press never does that… 🙂

“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” he said.

Buried in the middle of the article:  John J. Bouma, asserted that the state law actually mirrors the letter of the federal law, even if that federal law is not enforced fully in practice. He argued the state had every right to ask its peace officers to call up federal authorities and check on a person’s immigration status during routine traffic stops or other arrests, even if it created a headache for federal authorities.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them, and they don’t want to know about them — that’s what they are saying,” Mr. Bouma said, gesturing to the Justice Department lawyers.

“What we get is the plaintiff over here saying we cannot do anything,” he added. “That it’s not Arizona’s problem, that we should just live with it.”

As Judge Bolton questioned the federal government’s counsel, she expressed skepticism that the state was indeed carrying out its own immigration enforcement policy. She asked several times whether the statute would actually take the decision about what to do with an illegal immigrant away from federal authorities.

“How does it become immigration enforcement policy? It’s an immigration status check,” she said. “Arizona cannot remove anybody, and they don’t purport they can.”

So the meat is buried, and the headlines are biased.

About 30 protesters blocked traffic, many wearing T-shirts that said “Stop the Hate.” Several unfurled a large, white banner that blared “Stop SB1070. We will not comply.” Others in the group held a banner in Spanish saying: “There is no problem with immigration; there is a problem with capitalism. Revolution is the solution.” After two hours, the police cleared the intersection and arrested seven people.

Ah, LA RAZA and MeCHA showed up… 🙂

Antoinette Murray, 45, said she feared the law would prompt police officers to stop citizens who look Hispanic and arrest them if they cannot produce the right documents. “If they look at someone and they are of Mexican descent, they are going to be guilty until proven innocent,” she said. “It makes you guilty for being brown.”

The a priori racism argument yet again.

Sound familiar:

“You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona …” the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, “suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”–President Obama April 29, 2010.

Outside the courthouse, people of all political stripes mounted noisy demonstrations. Charlene Greenwood, 46 and unemployed, described herself as a Tea Party member, wore a semiautomatic pistol on her hip and signs that read, “Illegal immigrants have better health care than I do” and, “Bank robbers, drug dealers and prostitutes are just trying to support their families too.”

So you go for the most extreme “loon” you can find and highlight them. No bias there.

In Sci-Fi Fandom this is known as “going for the guy in the spock ears” only. The most extreme element is normal to the person who wants to be condescending to begin with.

To confirm the stereotype.

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” –Candidate Obama said. 4/12/2008

But the old grey lady had to end their piece with one more sob story:

Among the protesters were several illegal immigrants who were waiting for judges to decide their cases. Rudy Gomez, 37, said he came to the country illegally from Guatemala in 1997 and has been working as a roofer ever since.

He has four children and fears he may be caught and deported in the crackdown envisioned under the law, he said. “I’m not doing anything wrong,” he said. “This is my home. This is where I live.”

Boo Frickin’-Hoo!

Come here legally and people will welcome you.

But he’s been here 13 years. Has 4 kids that we are undoubtedly paying for (education, health care,etc) , and he’s taken a construction job from a legal american.

And we are supposed to look the other way.

Because it’s the federal government’s job to look the other way.

And if you dare look, the almighty OZ will crush you where you stand!

I don’t think so.

“A law that is unenforced is no law at all,” said John Bouma, the lawyer representing Arizona. “We have had repeated pleas … that have basically gone unheeded.”(Reuters)

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don’t have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law “in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way.”(WP)

States’ Rights: A federal judge hears arguments over whether a state law that mirrors federal law on immigration should take effect next week. Can a state protect its borders when the federal government won’t?

Critics of Arizona’s enlisting local police to enforce federal immigration law fail to note the existence of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to do just that. The Department of Homeland Security has memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with some 70 state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g) partnerships to enforce federal law. Nine of these jurisdictions are in Arizona, and all of the agreements were inked while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was Arizona governor.

Judge Bolton also heard arguments on whether the Arizona law should be put on hold for now and whether the federal lawsuit should be dismissed. Unfortunately, illegal immigration, a raging drug war in Mexico and an increasing presence by Hezbollah south of the border cannot be put on hold. As the case began, Mexican authorities fought raging gun battles in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas. Nuevo Laredo is among several northern cities under siege from a turf battle between the Gulf cartel and its former enforcers, the Zetas gang of hit men. Violence and kidnappings have spilled across our border. The case for border security and immigration enforcement have never been stronger.

A bid by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to block the suit failed 55-43 with five Democrats voting with him and two Republicans siding with the Department of Justice. Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraska and George Voinovich of Ohio voted against Arizona and in favor of open borders.

Rhode Island has a policy issued through an executive order identical to Arizona’s law. Rhode Island has not been sued, probably because its policy was not enacted in an election cycle. Nine other states have joined in a legal brief supporting Arizona in federal court, and a number of states are considering similar laws.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has declared the Wolverine State the lead state backing the Arizona law in court. It has filed a brief in federal court on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

“Arizona, Michigan and every other state has the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement. We think so too.

The duty of this administration is to protect the borders of the United States and to enforce our laws, not to wage a legal war against Arizona for doing what the feds have failed to do.(IBD)

The power the Feds refuse to use and want bar anyone else from using.

Now that’s protecting your base and your base wanna-be’s, just not your citizens.

But what else would you expect from our “post-racial” President and his takeover-happy apparatchik-minded Liberals.

The Winning Strategy II: The Voters

“When the right-wing noise machine starts promoting another alleged scandal, you shouldn’t suspect that it’s fake — you should presume that it’s fake, until further evidence becomes available,” columnist Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times.

So you wonder why the Liberal Media won’t cover or covers up stories like Rev. Wright, The Black Panthers Case, ACORN scandal, etc.

Or at least they won’t cover it like “journalists” actually would.

They are the Ministry of Truth after all.

So now we come to the Vote.

Supposed to be the most sacred act in America.

Unless you want to win by any means necessary that is. The end justifies the means.

So cast yourself back to 2000.

VP Al Gore has won the popular vote but not the Electoral College.

Forget all the crap about “hanging chads” and focus on the Electoral College.

Liberals have been fuming mad about this for 10 years.

Yes, it was the first time in nearly 200 years that this occurred. But it happened to THEM.

The vastly superior Liberal Progressives. That can’t be allowed to stand.

Problem is, it’s in the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state’s legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election.

Citizens vote for electors, representing a state, who are the authorized constitutional participants in a presidential election. In early U.S. history, some state laws delegated the choice of electors to the state legislature. Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.

And here’s where the Liberals want to corrupt the process.

The Electoral College is there to prevent the most populace states for running roughshod over the smaller states. Everyone gets a proportional vote.

But the liberals have been pissed that they lost to George W Bush in 2000 in the Electoral College ever since.

Not for any other reason that pure partisanship.

And now they want to subvert it, for pure partisanship. Along with other tactics to cheat to win.

It’s called euphemistically, The National Popular Vote Bill.

And it has begun in liberal states.

Under the proposed law, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are waging a state-by-state campaign to try to get such bills enacted. Once states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of the Electoral College votes, no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign’s website.

It sounds innocent enough, doesn’t it? But that’s just the apple. There is a donkey-shaped snake in this garden.

This effort began innocently enough several years ago when a few law professors were doing what some might say they do best: engaging in mental gymnastics, apparently just for the fun of it. Or maybe as a part of a continuing effort to see who can outdo the other, coming up with imaginative ways to legally do something that was supposed to be illegal. Could they come up with a way to eliminate the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution?

Remember this isn’t about changing the Constitution. This is about manipulating it.

Keeping the system, but pass laws that gut it and hollow it so it means nothing.

Then you have, Amnesty for 12 million new Democrats.

You have ACORN, busted for voter fraud.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice’s Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal “Motor Voter” law — Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

You have The New Black Panther Voter Intimidation case that the Dept of Justice refuses to handle.

“We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”

Access for minorities that is…

Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What’s more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party’s candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri’s voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue. (WSJ)

So you have a Dept of Justice that will go after Arizona for Illegal immigration enforcement but will ignore voter fraud and voter intimidation.

You have a Justice Department that isn’t interested in the rule of law, but the rule of ideology.

You have the Propaganda of the Liberal Media that has now been absolutely been proven to be manipulating the facts for their own agenda.

The SEIU thugs (who beat up a Tea Party activist last year and got away with it, by the way)

Class Warfare rhetoric.

Race Wars (getting minorities to vote against “crackers”– aka Republicans)

“You’re a Racist” if you disagree.

The DISCLOSE Act that would restrict corporations (aka non-liberals mostly) and favor Union speech again.

And you have hundreds of thousands of  “illegal voters” out there that you refuse to clean off the books (i.e. the deceased, or felons, etc).

Pack the courts with activist Judges and liberal ideologues.

And you have the makings of a banana republic farce where you hold an election just to make it look like it matters but in point of fact you’ve rigged the outcome.

That would work for the progressive liberal superiority complex now wouldn’t it.

It’s “fair”. 🙂

They win every time. That’s “democratic” 🙂

Five states have so far endorsed this ill-advised scheme to skirt the Constitution: Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington (61 electoral votes). The latest fronts in this battle are Massachusetts (12 electoral votes) and New York (31 electoral votes). The Massachusetts House and New York Senate have both approved the bills, so approval by the Massachusetts Senate and New York Assembly would send the measure to the states’ respective governors. Both states could act at any time. Three other state legislatures have approved NPV, although the bills were vetoed: California, Rhode Island, and Vermont (62 electoral votes). The Rhode Island House later rejected the measure. These latter states remain important because of a lawsuit that could be filed in an attempt to overturn the vetoes.

If each of these states is included, NPV could have as many as 166 electoral votes in favor of its scheme. It needs 270 to essentially eliminate the Electoral College. NPV is close to success, yet because of the manner in which it is seeking change, the vast majority of the country remains completely unaware that the presidential election system is so close to such radical change.

So you secretly line up your forces.

That’s very “democratic” isn’t it 🙂

The country can’t conduct one coherent national election when there are 51 different sets of state and local election codes in place. Today, the variance among state election laws is irrelevant because each state (plus D.C.) need accomplish nothing more than elect its own slate of electors. In essence, Americans conduct 51 different elections and expect 51 different sets of results. NPV, by contrast, expects to smash these 51 sets of laws into one completely national result. It won’t work. Instead, the resulting chaos will make Florida 2000 look like a picnic. (campaignfreedom.com)

So I guess the federal government would have to come and have “supremacy” in order to have an orderly election process and ensure it was “fair” for all. 🙂

And it would bring “order” to the “chaos”…

Sssssssssssssssssssssss  🙂

The Winning Strategy Part 1: The Media

November 2010.

The most important election in American History.

And the Democrats know it.

So, get ready for anything goes.

Because after all, the end justifies the means.

There will be all out Nuclear Race War.

Class Warfare.

Bush Derangement Syndrome will be epidemic.

You’ll up to the sky in kitchen sinks.

Nothing will actually be off limits.

Everyone of you who even hints at disagreeing with them is a Racist or an Uncle Tom.

You know who you are. 🙂

And The Mainstream Media will be right there in their propaganda roll as the Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Think how underplayed the greatest lie of the Obama administration is being ignored, That of the Health Care Mandate as a Tax then you get the idea.

Then it came out this week that many in the News Media (not just “commentators”) actively and with political forethought deliberately ignored, suppressed or actively worked against the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story when it broke and actively worked to get Obama elected in general by hook or by crook.

Absolutely no “objectivity” or “journalism” need apply.

Did you notice how fast it disappeared?  And anyone who brought it  after that was…<<drum roll>>…A RACIST! 🙂

And if you disagreed with Obama, you were de facto a Racist?

Then after he was elected the Tea Party sprung up, and guess what, they were Racists too!!

It was no accident. I was a calculated plan by the very journalists themselves.

Someone found a forum where “journalists” hung out and said what they really think.

But don’t expect to here it on the Mainstream Media, the very people who were saying it. 🙂

Daily Caller: It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Specifically, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Ackerman wrote on the Journolist listserv in April 2008. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

ABC being the “tough questions” asked of the President about Rev. Wright in April 2008, just after it broke.

How dare they! That must be stopped!

The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson’s] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

Karl Rove played down the notion that members of the mainstream press agreed with Ackerman but he said he found it curious that such talk was tolerated within the group. It was important, he added, not to judge the motives of members who chose not to respond.

“I thought it was a revealing insight in the attitude of one minor player in the D.C. world of journalism,” Rove said of Ackerman’s comments. “It’s an even more important insight into a broader group of more prominent journalists that they seem to be willing to tolerate the suggestion that they should all tell a deliberate lie or that they should take somebody’s head and shove it through a plate glass window. I would hope that somebody would say, ‘Mr. Ackerman, do you really believe we ought to fabricate a lie about people just because we don’t agree with them?’”

Barnes added that even if there was an effort on the left to smear opponents as racists, the plan wouldn’t work.

“The charge has been made so often without any evidence that it has lost its sting,” he said. “It has become the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.”

Interview on FOX: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/publisher-neil-patel-chats-with-megyn-kelly-about-journolist/

And Now Part II: The Enemies List

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.

When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air…

“If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

A comment on the website after the stories summed it up beautifully:

This expose simply confirms what many of us have known all along. Liberals in the MSM are rigid idealogues who write for each other. They passionately believe they are on the side the angels while conservatives are just plain evil. In their world the ends justify the means and advocacy journalism is their contribution to advancing the cause. They are no better than the “journalists” who wrote for TASS or PRAVDA and their mindset is as rigid and narrow as what you would find in areas where the Taliban has complete control.

Excerpts: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/

Tomorrow, the question will be how do you fix voters…CHEAT like You have CHEATED before! 🙂
One Hint: The Electoral College is Evil and must be stopped! 🙂

The Political Class

The frustration that voters are expressing in 2010 goes much deeper than specific policies. At a more fundamental level, voters just don’t believe politicians are interested in the opinions of ordinary Americans.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% believe the nation’s Political Class doesn’t “care what most Americans think.” Only 15% believe the Political Class is interested in the views of those they are supposed to serve. Another 17% are not sure.

Skepticism about the Political Class interest in voters is found across just about all demographic and partisan groups. However, self-identified liberals are evenly divided on the question.  Eighty-eight percent (88%) of conservatives and 64% of moderates reject the notion that the Political Class cares.

Adults over 40 are more skeptical than younger adults about the Political Class. But even among voters under 30, nearly half (47%) don’t think the Political Class cares what most Americans think. Only 18% of these younger voters think the Political Class does care, while 35% are not sure.(Rasmussen)

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 – August 2010 issue American Spectator

(Excerpts)

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers — easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.

Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that “we” are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained.

When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked “can’t you let anything alone?” he answered with, “I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill.”

Sound Familiar? It’s for your own good.  “I”  know better…

March 17,2010: President Barack Obama said he’s confident his health-care plan will pass Congress because it’s “the right thing to do” for the country and that he isn’t concerned about criticism of Democratic legislative tactics.

And anytime this President says he is putting aside politics (for any reason) I want to reach for the barf bag.

As the saying goes, they came to Washington to do good, and stayed to do well.

Confident “knowledge” that “some of us, the ones who matter,” have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives (the worst form of Liberal Democrats) into a class long before they took power.

Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a “machine,” that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Such parties often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods and enhance mightily the upper levels’ wealth. Because this is so, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges — civic as well as economic — to the party’s clients, directly or indirectly.

Which is why before this blog on chat rooms during the 2006 Congressional and 2008 Presidential campaigns and the Democrats only real thought was to harp on Republican “corruption” I said repeatedly, they just want to replace the republican corruption with their corruption.

Switch out the cronies.

And that’s what we have. You have to be a minority and/or a union worker to get anything from this administration besides the back of their hand.

If you’re rich and successful, you are a demon, unless the government “deems” you useful or wants to take over your business that is.

Like Fannie and Freddie who were excluded from Financial Reform.

The Trial Lawyers were excluded from Health Care Reform.

Both are cronies of the government and the Trial Lawyers are the biggest cronies of Liberals.

As I said last week in a blog, the Liberals love to sue you into submission.

Rasmussen: “The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. The American people want to govern themselves,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “The American attachment to self-governance runs deep. It is one of our nation’s cherished core values and an important part of our cultural DNA.”

But self-governed people are bad for the government busy bodies and their cronies who want to run your life for you because you’re an idiot and can’t do it for yourself.

They just know deep down, you’re a moron and they have to take care of you.

So Let Them Eat Cake! 🙂

Oh, sorry, Cake is politically incorrect because it has so much sugar in it and that’s bad for you.

So let them Eat Cookies.

Nope, not that either, cookies are the spawn of the devil  and lead to bad health habits…

So Let them Eat Tofu!

Without any help it’s flavorless, bland, or not very appetizing.

PERFECT! 🙂

It’s Not You, It’s Me

You either think government is the solution to the problem, or it is the problem. And, unless your worldview shifts, no amount of clever wordsmithing, or smokescreens, will ever change your opinion.

Have you ever heard, “it’s not you, it’s me?”  I know that I have.  People employ this phrase to distract from, and even soften, the blow of ending a relationship.  The dirty little secret – that we all know – is that it simply doesn’t work.  The words do nothing to distract from the fact that, at least to one party, what’s about to happen is very undesirable.

Yet, this is exactly what the media suggests that the Obama White House do.  “If only they made it sound nicer,” the theory goes, “the American people would finally accept President Obama’s liberal agenda.”  Apparently, we just need to have our ears tickled because we mistakenly thought we disliked the president’s policies because they are bad for the country. (Daily Caller)

Imagine that.

If they just explained it better we’d all rush to the wonders and fascination for government control of every second of our lives.

Imagine that.

One Obama adviser was even quoted as saying, “‘I tell you, it’s very frustrating that [the message] is not breaking through.”

Remember they said the same thing due the Health Care “debate” as the popularity of it went into the tank.

Some things that are old are new again.

Dan Gerstein is a smart, centrist Democrat who usually has insightful things to say about the political landscape, but this column entitled, “Fire David Axelrod” is a symptom of the same disease he is trying to cure. Gerstein is shocked that according to poll taken by fellow-Democrat James Carville, 55 percent of Americans think Barack Obama is a socialist. He concludes that this statistic along with similar negative feelings among voters for the stimulus legislation and Obamacare are all part of the White House’s message problem. David Axelrod was a fabulous choice for the campaign, Gerstein says, but he sucks at developing and controlling Obama’s message. Gerstein’s solution is that more Democrats should be demanding that the president shake-up his staff and bring in someone else who will not fail to drive the conversation.

But when it comes to perceptions about health care reform and the stimulus, Gerstein has diagnosed the wrong disease. It isn’t a matter of losing the message that Obamacare is leading us toward more government control of the health care industry, it is the truth and voters know that. As for the stimulus, well, Gerstein may be right that lots of economists think that it was better than nothing. But that doesn’t mean it was actually helpful to the vast majority of Americans. The stimulus has been great for government jobs, but even Obama now admits that he’s going to focus on the private sector to help them create more jobs . Isn’t that what he was supposed to be doing since he came into office nearly two years ago?

David Axelrod may indeed be a net negative for Obama, but it isn’t because a better spinmeister would be able to make lemonade out of lemons. Voters are smarter than most pundits and journalists give them credit for and these folks recognize that the changes afoot are not going to make their lives better. Axelrod or no Axelrod, Obama’s problem isn’t the message. It’s the policies that make people think he’s a socialist. (NY Post)

Don’t shoot the messenger, just replace him with a better one!

It’s not you, darling, It’s me…

And now the Arizona Republic (Repulsive) has run a story with pictures. “Do I Look Illegal?”

<<Barf Bag on standby>>

Since that is impossible. I guess you’d have to ASK!!

But if you do you’re a racist! 🙂

See how that works. It’s not them, it’s YOU!  You’re the Racist!

Now doesn’t that make you feel better, honey… 🙂

Arianna Huffington: “George, the truth is that right now we have precisely the regulatory system that the Bush-Cheney administration wanted. Full of loopholes, full of cronies and lobbyists filling the very agencies they’re supposed to be overseeing the industry.”
George Will: “So, it’s Bush’s fault? Just clear this up.”
Huffington: “It is absolutely a thousand percent Bush-Cheney’s fault.”

It’s not me, it’s Bush! 🙂

The fact that the Financial Reform package exempted the largest mortgage holder in the country from the rules changes, oversight, and regulations is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a government entity, is not worth mentioning.

That the government itself is now the largest mortgage lender in the US.

It’s still not me, darling, it’s you! 🙂

What happens when the government drives business to a few banks in collusion with the government to control your activities and funds.  The government will be able to identify what you do, what your habits are, when you use money and what you spend it on?

After all, it’s for you own good.

Don’t you just love how government turns everything on it’s head.

And it’s not You, It’s Me! 🙂

I’m too stupid to understand the complexities of Social Justice and Social Engineering and you’re not able to communicate it’s brilliance properly.

So it’s not you, it’s me. 🙂

I Told You So :)

I, like many others who read the health care bills, unlike the mainstream Media, which did it’s best to hide and deny what was going to happen, have now been shown the light of our truth.

But I’m sure the Ministry of Truth will do it’s best to diminish, dismiss and deny it even now.

That is that Mandatory Health Insurance is a TAX.

Shocking revelation, I know… 🙂

On poor people no less!!

CBS Sept 2009: President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

“My critics say everything is a tax increase,” Mr. Obama said on “This Week.” “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”

ABC: The—for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . .” In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don’t call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?”

Mr. Obama: “I absolutely reject that notion.”

President Obama said in his not quite State of the Union address that Americans earning less than $250,000 would pay “not one dime” in new taxes.

Well, it’s time to reveal Lie #4,362. The Big Whopper.

The one all of us “racist” “teabagger” “idiots” and “terrorist” warned you about.

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

They knew they were lying. They didn’t care. Because the end justified the means.

And the Mainstream Media was either brain-dead stupid or in on the lies. Period.

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Orwell is smiling on you, Mr President and AG Holder.

Masters of Doublespeak.

Orwell on “The Party” of Big Brother: The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.  Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them…(Orwell, New American Library, 1981, p35)

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”

2009: What’s more, the agency is limited in the actions it can take to enforce compliance. “Congress was very careful to make sure that there was nothing too punitive in this bill,” {IRS Chief} Shulman said. “There’s no criminal sanctions for not paying this, and there’s no ability to levy a bank account or do seizures or [use] some of the other tools” available to the agency for enforcing laws.

If necessary, the IRS will levy fines against individuals who fail to purchase adequate insurance and collect them though tax return offsets. But the agency’s “first line of defense is education,” he said.

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.

Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.

“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”

In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.

In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

But it will bring prices down: Lie #4,264

The Democratic co-chair of President Obama’s fiscal commission said Wednesday that the president’s health care bill will do very little to bring down costs, contradicting claims from the White House that their sweeping legislation will dramatically impact runaway entitlement spending.

“It didn’t do a lot to address cost factors in health care. So we’ve got a lot of work to do,” said Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, speaking about the new health law, which was signed into law by Obama this past spring after a nearly year-long fight in Congress.

Esrkine Bowles is one of the two stooges who will anounce AFTER the mid-term election that all is crap and we have to have massive Tax increases in order to save us all, including likely, the VAT.

And if the republicans are in charge of at least one side or both of Congress it will be even  more there fault! 🙂

And Obama is going to, “Well, I have to do what the report says…”

It’s the ultimate Dog & Pony show.

Just keep that in mind.
Bowles, speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that even with the passage of Obama’s legislation, health care costs are still going to “really eat us alive” unless dramatic changes are made. The commission will submit recommendations on how to fix America’s long term fiscal problems to Congress in December.

Bowles’ point will be amplified Thursday when a conservative think tank releases a paper arguing that Obama’s health plan “is not entitlement reform,” at an event intended to highlight an alternative plan for reforming health care spending that is the brainchild of Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.

James C. Capretta, a former White House budget adviser on health care to President George W. Bush, will present the paper for the Galen Institute at an event on Capitol Hill with Ryan, one of the Republican Party’s rising stars, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top conservative economist.

Even as many on Capitol Hill are talking about addressing Social Security spending, Capretta writes in the 19-page paper that Medicare is the real problem.

Most Democrats and Republicans agree, Capretta says, that the 30 to 35 million seniors in Medicare’s fee-for-service (FFS) insurance program are “the engine … pulling the rest of the health system down the tracks at an accelerated and dangerous rate.”

And who just got recess appointee to the job of head of Medicare, a NHS Single-payer Health Care rationing lover.
No coincidence there mind you. 🙂

Most FFS participants pay nothing out of their own pockets for health care, and hospitals and doctors are incentivized to provide them with as many services and tests as can be loosely justified.

But Capretta says in the paper that the Obama health bill is not reform because it attempts to stop price inflation and inefficient care through top-down government control rather than bottom-up consumer demand.

“When attempts have been made in the past to steer patients toward preferred physicians or hospitals, they have failed miserably because politicians and regulators find it impossible to make distinctions among hospitals and physician groups based on quality measures that can themselves be disputed,” Capretta says.

Capretta goes on to say that Paul Ryan’s plan would move Medicare recipients from defined benefits to defined contributions, in which “cost-conscious consumers choose between competing insurers and delivery systems based on price and quality.”

“Beneficiaries would get to decide which insurance plan they want to enroll in. If the premium were more than the amount they are entitled to from Medicare, then they would pay the difference. If it were less, they would keep all of the savings,” Capretta says.

“Millions of otherwise passive Medicare participants would become active, cost-conscious consumers of insurance and alternative models for securing needed medical services,” Capretta writes. “Cost cutting innovation would be rewarded, not punished as it is today.”

White House officials pointed to recent blog posts by White House budget director Peter Orszag, who said that “if implemented effectively, [Obama’s health care bill] can play an important role in moving toward a healthier fiscal future.” (Daily Caller)

Welcome Big Brother Obama and Big Mother Michelle’s New and Improved IRS:

If it seems as if the tax code was conceived by graphic artist M.C. Escher, wait until you meet the new and not improved Internal Revenue Service created by ObamaCare. What, you’re not already on a first-name basis with your local IRS agent?

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency’s new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already “greatly taxed”—pun intended?—”by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public,” like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.” And without “sufficient funding” it won’t be able to discharge these new duties.

That wouldn’t be tragic, given that those new duties include audits to determine who has the insurance “as required by law” and collecting penalties from Americans who don’t. Companies that don’t sponsor health plans will also be punished. This crackdown will “involve nearly every division and function of the IRS,” Ms. Olson reports.

Well, well. Republicans argued during the health debate that the IRS would have to hire hundreds of new agents and staff to enforce ObamaCare. They were brushed off by Democrats and the press corps as if they believed the President was born on the moon. The IRS says it hasn’t figured out how much extra money and manpower it will need but admits that both numbers are greater than zero.

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

Democrats snuck in this obligation to narrow the mythical “tax gap” of unreported business income, but Ms. Olson says that the tracking costs for small businesses will be “disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance.” Job creation, here we come . . . at least for the accountants who will attempt to comply with a vast new 1099 reporting burden.

Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won’t be able to manage and track the nanodetails.

In a Monday letter, even Democratic Senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Evan Bayh (Indiana) denounce this new “burden” on small businesses and insist that the IRS use its discretion to find “better ways to structure this reporting requirement.” In other words, they want regulators to fix one problem among many that all four Senators created by voting for ObamaCare.

We never thought anyone would be nostalgic for the tax system of a few months ago, but post-ObamaCare, here we are.(WSJ)

On Friday, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. His plea to fellow Democrats to pass a $22.9-billion fix for Medicare doctors’ fees reveals the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.

Remember the health care issue? Well, the fiscal consequences of the socialized medicine scheme enacted by President Barack Obama and Congress just two months ago are already beginning to snowball.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was one of the key architects and advocates of Obamacare. He was back on the House floor on Friday delivering an urgent plea to fellow Democrats that inadvertently—or, perhaps, unavoidably—revealed the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.

It was supposed to save the taxpayers money, remember? “This legislation will lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” Obama said when he signed the bill.

On Friday, Waxman declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. He went to the House floor to “urge” his colleagues to vote for a bill that includes $102 billion in new federal spending and would add $54 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years — $25 billion of it in the few months remaining in this fiscal year.

Why did Waxman believe this new borrowing-and-spending was necessary?

“It’s absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians’ services,” said Waxman. “This provision will provide a moderate increase in physicians’ fees, 2.2 percent for the rest of the year. If we don’t act, doctors’ fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable.”

It would not merely be unconscionable. If the 21-percent cut in Medicare fees for doctors—that, in fact, legally took effect on June 1 — is allowed to stand, many doctors in this country will simply stop seeing Medicare patients. They will not be able to afford it. The cost to them of serving their patients will exceed what they are paid. Their profit margin will be swept away.

To make precisely this point, 12 national surgeons’ associations—including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery—sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter last Wednesday warning her what would happen if Medicare doctors’ fees are slashed as they are scheduled to be under current law.

“These continued payment cuts, rising practice costs and a lack of certainty going forward, make it difficult, if not impossible, for already financially challenged surgical practices to continue to treat Medicare patients,” the surgeons’ associations told Pelosi.

The letter pointed the speaker toward the results of a survey of more than 13,000 physicians done in February by the Surgical Coalition, a group of more than 20 medical associations. The survey asked these doctors what they would do if Medicare fees were slashed by the scheduled 21.2 percent.

Twenty-nine percent said they would opt out of the Medicare system entirely. Almost 69 percent said they would limit the number of appointments they would take from Medicare patients, 45.8 percent said they would start referring complex Medicare patients to other physicians, 45.3 percent said they would stop providing certain services, 43.8 percent said they would defer purchasing new medical equipment and 42.7 percent said they would cut their staff. Almost 4 percent of the doctors said they would close or sell their practices.

Why did Congress plan to slash the doctors’ Medicare fees in the first place? It didn’t. In the past, the majority in Congress has routinely enacted budget bills that fraudulently assumed that on some future date the federal government would dramatically slash the Medicare fees paid to doctors, knowing that before that date arrived the majority would pass “emergency” legislation postponing the cuts to some still-future date. The majority in Congress does this so the long-term deficits caused by their spending bills appear to be smaller than they actually are.

As originally proposed, Obamacare would have ended this practice, permanently setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the true anticipated level. But the Congressional Budget Office determined that doing so would have added $208 billion to the cost of Obamacare over 10 years, forcing the CBO to declare that Obamacare added to the deficit rather than reduced it. That would have cost Obamacare votes on the House floor and quite possibly defeated the legislation.

So the congressional leadership stripped the “doc fix” out of Obamacare and left it to another day.

Waxman went down to the floor last Friday to declare that day had come. Unfortunately, for him, the Senate had already left town for its Memorial Day vacation. So, the current fix will have to wait until it returns.

Even then, the fix only accounts for $22.9 billion of the $102 billion cost of the bill the House did pass on Friday. Most of the rest of the money is for extending unemployment benefits and special targeted tax breaks.

The $22.9 billion fix for the doctors’ fees—if passed by the Senate—would only last through September 2011. Then Congress will presumably do it all again—or let the Medicare system collapse.

And they did.

In the meantime, Obamacare is supposed to cut half a trillion in spending from elsewhere in Medicare, while Obama’s budget—not counting the $54 billion in new debt included in this bill—is expected to add $9.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

And then there’s still more on the “Financial Reform” bill related to the IRS:

“Small businesses are America’s job creators and essential to our nation’s economy,” Roberts said in prepared remarks. “Under the new healthcare law, small businesses will be hit with a costly tax reporting provision that will increase the cost of doing business at a time of economic uncertainty.”

Beginning in 2012, the law states that businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and state and local governments must submit a separate 1099 form for every business-to-business transaction totaling more than $600. The impetus behind the requirement is help the IRS better enforce the tax law by forcing companies to disclose whom they do business with.

Several organizations, including the IRS watchdog The National Taxpayer Advocate, have questioned how effective this requirement will be on enforcement.

The new mandate applies to everyday purchases, like shipping costs, supplies, even Internet and phone service. The senators argue this will overburden companies. The Taxpayer Advocate questions the IRS’ ability to handle all the documentation.

“Unless corrected, this time-wasting mandate of 1099 filings on common purchases needed to do business, will stifle economic growth and job creation while the IRS will be handed a paperwork nightmare,” Roberts said.

The senators contend the requirement will affect 40 million businesses nationwide.

“I have heard from many Kansas small businesses and farmers, already burdened with government bureaucracy, that these new reporting requirements will waste time and negatively impact their bottom-line,” Roberts said.

Abortion, anyone?

As reports are coming out that Pennsylvania is receiving $160 million from the Department of Health and Human Services to set up a new high-risk insurance pool program that will fund abortions, we are seeing, yet again, that the Obama Administration will say and do anything to pass their liberal agenda — ignoring public opinion along the way…

LIES: “You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion – not true. These are all fabrications.” — President Obama on August 19, 2009

D*MN LIES: “The executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.” — White House Statement on March 21, 2010

STATISTICS: 67 percent of Americans oppose funding abortions with public funds under the health care bill. — Quinnipiac University Poll, January 14, 2010

As pundits have commented in recent weeks, and many of us have realized, you need to watch what the President really does, not listen to what he says, as the two are often in vast contrast of one another. As you can read above, nowhere is this truer than on the issue of abortion.

Back in March, when the offer to sign an Executive Order was made, many pro-lifers questioned why the order was needed after President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Sebelius had been saying for months that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions. On the day of the vote, I personally spoke on the House floor about how an Executive Order has no effect of law and cannot override the clear intent of a statute, as well as on how an Executive Order is only a piece of paper. Now that we know how little the President values his word and that he is comfortable violating an Executive Order, we are only left to wonder what other secrets are lurking for us in the dark. (The Hill)

Remember, it was abortion that was the very last hurdle that Obama had to jump over to get his power over life and death.

He promised to Federally ban it.

He said Health Care Reform wasn’t tax.

The Stimulus will create 3 Million Jobs. (not “save or create”)

I said at the time he was lying.

I got called a racist so many times I could have paid off my house with the money if I got paid for it.

Saying this President is lying when his lips are moving is like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

It’s an absolute certainty.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”-Orwell

Thank you, Big Brother and Big Mother and Big Sis… 😦

Anyone got a crate of Tea handy… 🙂

The Politics of Food

As an amateur home cook and a junkie for The Food Network and other Food Shows I take food seriously.

But not like our President and his Food Nazis.

And no, I don’t mean “Seinfeld”.

This is not a comedy.

This is your usual socialist tragedy.

Busy bodies with a moral superiority complex.

You may laugh about the White House assistant chef being appointed “Senior Policy Adviser.” You’ll stop laughing when you realize that those in power really do want to tell you what to eat.

You just can’t cook these things up. The 29-year-old Chicago chef that the Obama family for years paid to be their private cook, Sam Kass, was quietly promoted last month from his job as assistant chef at the White House residence and “food initiative coordinator” to the position of “senior policy adviser for healthy food initiatives.”

The long-suffering American people don’t get to know if an increase in salary is involved, because Kass is on the residence staff rather than the West Wing’s.

But we should know how much the taxpayers are paying this “bald, intense young man” who, according to the New York Times, is “part chef and part policy wonk” and is “reinventing the role of official gastronome in the Executive Mansion.”

He plays golf with the president at Martha’s Vineyard, attends the administration’s child-health briefings, and quizzes senior White House staff about policy.

“Do we have a toxicologist who specializes in colony collapse disorder?” Kass once asked in an e-mail to the Agriculture Department, according to the New York Times story.

Add the fact that Kass isn’t even a formally trained chef and you really start to wonder what’s going on here.

The law lets the president appoint anyone he wants as “senior policy adviser.” But if he wants to be the first president to employ a cook/food czar, he should make that plain to the public — and publish the man’s taxpayer-funded salary, as is the case with other White House policy advisers.

Of course, it all begs the question: Why on earth do the American people need a government-paid “food initiative coordinator”? This administration has been attempting to elevate nutrition to the level of a civil rights issue.

How much harassment is enough in regard to food? New York City has opened the door for every local government to ban trans fats. Then there are the ubiquitous nutrition labels on every food item in supermarkets and fast-food restaurants.

The food nannies are everywhere. Now in the White House, too.

If President Obama really wants to appoint a butcher, baker or candlestick maker to a top White House policy job, we humbly propose a better suggestion: Joe the Plumber. (IBD)

Because it’s such a dire situation, she has convinced her husband’s administration to spend $400 million a year to bring “healthy foods” to low-income neighborhoods and $10 billion to revise a decades-old federal measure that already feeds tens of millions of poor children at school for free.

This culinary revolution no doubt requires a trusted senior policy adviser—like Kass—who is an expert in healthy cuisine. The First Lady refers to her cook as a “partner in crime” and says it’s “just pretty powerful” to see what started out as talk in her South Side Chicago kitchen turn into a major initiative that “hopefully will change the way we think as a country.”

Makes you wonder what Kass, who also doubles as a White House chef, has been putting in the Obama’s food all these years. Incidentally, the “most transparent administration” in history doesn’t want Americans to know how much the famous family cook earns. Although he’s an important administration wonk, Kass’s salary is excluded in the Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff because he’s considered “residence staff” and those salaries don’t need to be disclosed. (Judicial Watch)

Even the private chef of the President is a political hack, for god’s sake!

Yet more “czars” from the “I’m not a socialist!” President. 🙂

In a statement released on June 22, the liberal Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) announced it was filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s for marketing toys with their signature Happy Meals. The statement’s creepy hyperbole nearly implied that Ronald McDonald should be featured on an episode of “To Catch a Predator:”

’McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner.

And the Liberal Media just easts it up.

“But would children still be happy with their meal without the joy of a new toy? That’ll be up to kids, and possibly a judge,” chided NBC’s Erika Edwards.

“It’s entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property.”–San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom after he “regulated” the sale of non-diet drinks in city vending machines.

“On its own, popcorn is a low-fat, low-cal, whole grain food,” said Good Morning America’s consumer correspondent Elizabeth Leamy, “but the Center (for Science in The Public Interest) says that the way some movie theaters prepare it, it’s more like eating a rack of ribs with a scoop of ice cream on top.”

UK Daily Mail: Teachers have used ‘Big Brother’ tactics to spy on children’s lunchboxes, it has been revealed. They secretly photographed pupils’ packed lunches over six months and analysed the contents.

Staff awarded marks to the food and then showed their findings to outraged parents, offering them advice on how to improve nutrition.

Education bosses have now put a stop to the scheme in Gloucestershire after discovering the extent of the surveillance.

Nineteen primary schools have been using the ‘packed lunch toolkit’, which was devised by Gloucestershire county council and NHS Gloucestershire.

Contents were taken out of a random sample of lunchboxes and then photographs taken.

Staff rated the contents against set nutritional standards. They looked for high fat, salt and sugary foods as well as fruit and vegetables.

NHS= National Health Service. HHS= Health and Human Services.

Brothers from a different mother? 🙂

But Yvette Gayle, whose nine-year-old daughter Renee Dougan attends the school, said she didn’t mind.

‘It might encourage parents to pack a healthier lunch for their kids anyway,’ she said.

Cheryl Ridler, an education co-ordinator at the school, said the scheme has led to ‘a definite improvement in the quality of food’ brought in.

‘All the parents were very positive about it and we did it in a very nice and careful way, and in no way demanding and intrusive,’ she added.

Big Brother smiles upon you Citizen. Rejoice. 🙂

Maybe we could have a reality show, showing a Nutritional Intervention or maybe an actual Food Police show, showcasing the worst slovenly, offensive offenders against the public good. 🙂

Unfortunately, it is their business, because too many of us have insisted on treating healthcare services as an entitlement rather than a commodity. As a result, we’ve implicitly given government the permission to interfere with anything having to do with “public health,” including our food choices. And for the most part, many people support these dumb food bans because they imagine it’s doing some kind of good. I find it hard to believe that could be true. As the failed war on drugs has taught us, government regulation is no match for the forces of supply and demand.(411mania.com)

And where have we heard of Health Care as an entitlement?

The Left

Who are the Food Police?

The Left.

Funny how that worked out. 😦

And with Comedy comes Tragedy.

And her it is folks.

The reason why the Food Police are coming to get you.

You’re too Fat!!!, and that’s a negative impact on ObamaCare.

So we can’t have that.

If the government gets to decide who lives and who dies, they get to decide what you eat as well.

It’s for your own good, after all.

Rejoice. 🙂

Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records–that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year–must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.

The obesity-rating regulation states that every American’s electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”

The law also requires that these electronic health records be available–with appropriate security measures–on a national exchange.

The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014, as outlined in the 2009 economic stimulus law.  Specifically, the regulations issued on Tuesday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, define the “meaningful use” of electronic records. Under the stimulus law, health care providers–including doctors and hospitals–must establish “meaningful use” of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing “meaningful use” of EHRs.

Section 3001 of the stimulus law says: “The National Coordinator shall, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology), update the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan (developed as of June 3, 2008) to include specific objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to the following: (i) The electronic exchange and use of health information and the enterprise integration of such information.‘‘(ii) The utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.”

Under this mandate in the stimulus law, Secretary Sebelius issued a regulation–developed by Dr. Blumenthal–that requires that all EHRs keep track of a person’s Body Mass Index (BMI) score. Body Mass Index is a ratio between a person’s weight and height, and is used to determine whether or not someone is overweight or obese. It is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity.

Michelle Obama has made dealing with the problem of childhood obesity the main theme of her term as First Lady.

According to the CDC,  “BMI provides a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems.”

A person’s BMI score is used as a tool to screen for obesity or excessive body fat that could lead to other health problems. While it does not actually measure body fat directly, according to CDC, the BMI scores generally correlate with a person’s body fat percentage.

The new regulations also stipulate that the new electronic records be capable of sending public health data to state and federal health agencies such as HHS and CDC. The CDC, which calls American society “obesogenic” – meaning that American society itself promotes obesity – collects BMI scores from state health agencies every year to monitor obesity nationwide.

“Electronically record, retrieve, and transmit syndrome based public health surveillance information to public health agencies,” the regulations read.

With the spread of electronic health records, the CDC apparently will be able to collect such data more efficiently and with greater accuracy because the electronic record keeping systems can send the data automatically, eliminating the need for government – both state and federal – to keep, send, and process physical records.

So how long until the BMI Tax or mandatory “health education”??

So you want that Big Mac, well, there’s a 20%  surcharge Tax and we have to record how many of them you have and when you have reached your limit you will not be allowed to eat it anymore until such time as the National Coordinator’s guidelines for your better health says so.

How far off is that?

Not far enough for my tastes.

But that’s why I was so vehemently against the whole thing to begin with.

But what do I know, I’m just a “racist” “teabagger” “idiot” who wants what’s bad for you, at least according to the Left and it’s Media pit bulls.

Have that Big Mac now, because in a few years it will be banned or so heavily regulated and taxed it will cost you $20 for just one and it will have to be registered with the HHS.

And if your BMI says you can’t have it, well, the Food Police will coming knocking on your door to “educate” you Citizen.

Just you wait and see.

Big Momma Michelle is watching you…

Criminal Crisis

“The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. “The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies.”

The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s role in immigration control.

“There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

So if you want to ignore the Federal law and set up a Sanctuary City that’s ok with us. Do something else and you’re “interfering” with our power.

The Empire has spoken! 🙂

If, in fact, any entity is actively “interfering” with the enforcement of federal immigration laws, it is these cities, which refuse cooperation with federal enforcement authorities. What Schmaler is doing, and what many legal experts claim, is willfully misrepresenting both the law in question and the role adopted by sanctuary cities.

If there is a “big difference” to be had here it is the sanctuary city is actively refusing to enforce the law while Arizona is actively attempting to enforce it.

And which is it our chief law enforcement agency decides to sue?  Of course, the entity trying to enforce our laws…

Just as a side Note, our cough-cough “esteemed” ex-gov Janet was on Greta Van Sustreen last night from Laredo, TX and asked about SB1070 and “racial profiling” and she dropped back and punted!

She refused to answer the question directly and even used Obama’s “misquided” and toted how much great stuff she has done and will be doing.

It was a real barf fest. Not that I excepted anything less from her. When she was Governor she only wanted to look tough on the border issue because of re-election campaign in 2006 and it was a poke in the eye of a Republican President.

But soon enough she bailed on the state just as everything went to hell. She drove it into the iceberg and then stole the life raft for herself.

Of course, ignored in all of this is the state of Rhode Island which has, for years, essentially had and enforced a state law that is almost a mirror of the Arizona law.

But since suing a Northeastern Liberal state not on the border which doesn’t have the vote potential is not politically advantageous we’ll just ignore it. They aren’t a big enough score.

We want spectacle. We want intimidation. We want FEAR! 🙂

The Empire has Spoken!

They have, in a very short time, turned the Department of Justice into the Department of Agendas, injecting an agenda driven politics into an area where it should never, ever be allowed. The result is a perversion of law and the breaking of a centuries old promise in our social contract.(examiner)

But if the end justifies the means, go for it! 🙂

And you have groups and the Attorney General just waiting for any whiff or any atom of any angstrom of “racial profiling” at 12:01am July 29th.

The attorney general, speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival last week in an interview aired on CBS on Sunday, said the pre-emption argument was the stronger attack against the law. But he said if the law does go into effect despite the suit, the Justice Department will watch and see whether profiling is taking place.

“If that was the case, we would have the tools, and we would bring suit on that basis,” he said.

So do I think that by 12:02am on July 29th there will be a lawsuit alledging “racial profiling”?

Yes.

But I’m a cynic of the highest order.

I think that the ACLU, LA Raza, and other groups will try there darnedest to set-up the police and then scream “racial profiling” even if it doesn’t exist. And they will do it each and every day.

Because, that’s what liberals do.

They lawyer you to death.

They beat you into submission with Lawyers.

That’s why we so many problems caused by lawyers.

Former U.S. Attorney General and Heritage Distinguished Fellow Edwin Meese addressed overcriminalization in his introduction to “One Nation Under Arrest.”  Meese writes:

America is in the throes of overcriminalization: We are making and enforcing far too many criminal laws that create traps for the innocent, but unwary, and that threaten to make criminals out of those who are doing their best to be respectable, law-abiding citizens

Last night on Fox Business, reporter John Stossel had a program about this problem:

The show focuses on the destruction that over-criminalization caused to average Americans Krister Evertson and George and Kathy Norris.

Krister, an Eagle Scout with no criminal record – not even a single traffic ticket, was initially arrested by four FBI agents wearing black SWAT gear and pointing automatic rifles at him because he didn’t know that obscure federal regulations required him to put a certain sticker on his otherwise lawful UPS package.  After spending 21 months in an Oregon federal prison, Krister today lives by himself in a ramshackle aluminum trailer sitting on the fenced-in grounds of a construction company’s equipment yard.  Because he is on parole, he is not allowed even to move to Alaska – where he was arrested – to live with his 80-year-old mother whom he used to care for.

George Norris, a 63-year-old retiree with diabetes and heart problems, had no criminal record the day armed agents with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (?!) ransacked his house looking for evidence that he had imported endangered orchids for his home-based business. Although the feds found no evidence of illegal orchids, Norris spent 17 months in prison – including over 10 weeks in solitary confinement – because a small percentage of his paperwork was inaccurate.

And he went to prison because after spending his entire life savings, $100,000, he was advised to plead guilty so he could be sentenced to probation. Instead, he spent 17 months in a Federal Prison!

Imagine: A Gang member with tatooes on his eyeballs comes up to him, “whatcha in for?”

“I sold legal orchids without the proper paperwork”

“Man, you’re one dangerous dude!” 🙂

And there’s the food police, you know, the people who want to ban salt, fat, and pop, etc. because they are bad for you and you’re too incompetent to be responsible for yourself.

The Video: http://overcriminalized.com/Video.aspx

Also: “The Food Police” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZZgLmmtwRk

There shall be no cupcakes. No chocolate cake and no carrot cake. According to New York City’s latest regulations, not even zucchini bread makes the cut.

In an effort to limit how much sugar and fat students put in their bellies at school, the Education Department has effectively banned most bake sales, the lucrative if not quite healthy fund-raising tool for generations of teams and clubs.

The change is part of a new wellness policy that also limits what can be sold in vending machines and student-run stores, which use profits to help finance activities like pep rallies and proms.

Did you know that Girl Scouts are evil perveyers of obese-creating cookies??

They are pushers!

They are evil crack dealers of fat!!

Warning  Labels on Fast Food. A Skull and Cross Bones on your Big Mac perhaps?

A HazMat sticker on that Little Debbie Snack Cake?

A Heart attack sign on that plate of Nachos?

If you refuse to do what is right, then the government will be forced to come in and make you do it.

It’s in your best interest.

All those who believe they are born with free choice, need to take a few classes in marketing psychology to understand how limited their scope of personal freedom really is in today’s America. In fact, our free choice is really the freedom to choose between Pepsi and Coke, not freedom to choose a healthy lifestyle. There are too many psychological cues pushing the average Joe and Jane towards obesity – mostly cheap unhealthy fare available anywhere anytime. (fooducate blog)

Part of being free is being free to make bad choices, to take risks, and to bear the consequences. Part of being free is that you, personally, may decide what you eat or drink. It’s a liberty so elementary that our founders never even imagined that it would need protection, but today, it does.

To be sure, there are many costs associated with socialized health care, and some of the choices we make will certainly raise those costs. That’s one big reason why the nanny state is suddenly in the food business. But if we absolutely must have socialized health care — a point I don’t for a moment concede — then I’d prefer to pay a little bit extra and keep all my other liberties, thanks.(Cato Institute)

But liberals and their pit bull lawyers never give up that easily.

They are, after all, vastly superior in every way to you. You just don’t know it. And if you want disagree, well, meet Mr and Mrs Lawsuit!

San Francisco is banning pop in vending machines, but not Starbucks, as bad for you.

Much like the Financial Reform that just passed that heaps tons of regulations on the private sector, but says absolutely nothing about federally-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the real problem that is still out there.

But it make it look like they are “doing something” and it’s for “your own good”.

And if you want to complain that the government is not doing it’s job, and you want to do it or help them do it, shut up and sit down, they know better.

We’ll sue you for trying to do our job too.

So if you step on a federal law land mine or are arrested by the food police, it’s for your own good, citizen.

Want to take responsibility for yourself, NOT ALLOWED.

That’s the government’s job.

We are are from the government and we are here to protect your from yourself!

Bow to your Masters or else!

Rejoice Citizen. 🙂

The Right Direction

As a follow-up to my earlier post on employment and stimulus, here’s a chart of what may be the most significant data on the topic.  Barack Obama claims that the unemployment rate dropping from 9.7% to 9.5% shows that we’re moving in the right direction economically — but that data doesn’t include those who have left the workforce out of discouragement.  They have no jobs and have given up looking for another due to economic conditions, according to the categorization by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  This chart shows the direction in which our economic policies have taken the US:

(numbers in thousands)

These represent the gross numbers of able-bodied workers outside the workforce and no longer looking for jobs.  The red star indicated when Barack Obama’s stimulus was passed, and we can see the effects or lack thereof on the workforce afterward.  Not only has the unemployment rate gone up and the number of jobs continued to drop since February 2009, Americans are increasingly leaving the workforce instead of joining it.

In what universe does this show “the right direction”?(hotair.com)

The Liberal spin universe that’s who!

The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

This month’s U6 unemployment number? Down from 16.6% in May to 16.5% in June.

Remember, though, that even the U6 is a government manipulated number, so we need to look a little bit deeper to see what the REAL unemployment rate is in America.

John Williams of Shadow Stats runs the numbers each month, and according to his most recent report, we’re actually hovering at around 21.5%. According to Williams, this is how the Shadow Stats “SGS Alternative” is calculated:

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

Williams’ unemployment numbers are more than double what Washington is telling us.(BIN)

June Unemployment

************

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF

Website to see: http://bordersheriffs.com/

July 15, 2010 – A non-partisan, non-profit organization – The Legacy Foundation – has agreed to raise money and provide legal defense to assist Arizona county sheriffs Paul Babeu and Larry Dever defend themselves against pro-amnesty interest groups and federal government lawsuits filed to prevent Arizona law enforcement officials from implementing SB1070, Arizona’s new illegal immigration law and to explore potential counter-litigation.

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever

Dever’s county borders Mexico. Babeu’s county is a major corridor for human and drug smuggling. Both men are strong 1070 advocates, having served on the frontlines of the illegal immigration crisis and defended the American border against the stream of illegal-immigration-fueled criminal activity passing through their counties daily, for more than a decade. Dever’s Cochise County is largely considered Ground Zero for illegal immigration and its related crime, including the murder of rancher Robert Krentz.
Babeu and Dever have retained prominent Conservative Attorney Jordan Rose and her firm, Rose Law Group pc, to defend the Sheriff’s Offices against federal litigation and explore any/all opportunities to countersue the federal government.
“We are grateful to be able to provide the Sheriffs with the most aggressive and creative legal counsel as the lives of their men and women are on the line each day trying to enforce our laws,” Rose said.
The announcement was made today on a radio show hosted by Jim Sharpe on 550 KFYI in Phoenix. Sharpe has been a long-standing defender of 1070 and a caller’s suggestion on his show was the genesis of the fund. Sharpe has explored the hypocrisy of the federal government suing a state over a law that mirrors its own – with added safeguards against racial profiling that the federal law doesn’t include.
Funding for the legal defense will be provided by the Legacy Foundation an Iowa-based, non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) that views Arizona ’s SB1070 debate as a national issue. Donations can be made at www.BorderSheriffs.com.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu

The Offices of Cochise County Sheriff Dever and Pinal County Sheriff Babeu are named personally in the lawsuit recently filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. These Sheriffs stand on the front lines of the border crisis given their patrol areas. And whereas the Arizona Governor is mounting a defense to recent litigation against the state, these men have been on the defensive for more than 30 years given a failed border-security and immigration program. They’ve declared it’s time to find a long-term resolution to this problem.
“I have spent 30 years defending this border against both criminal and economic attacks against the United States,” Dever said. “To sue my office, for defending this nation and our local, state and federal laws is despicable.”
Babeu added, “Inaction is not an option. Local law enforcement has long-successfully enforced local, state and federal laws. Carving an exception for immigration is unacceptable.”
Lawsuits filed against Arizona and its law enforcement officials stand to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. This defense will be funded not by already-tapped county coffers, but through private donations.

***********

A Now a Threat, from the guy who said he wouldn’t process Illegals caught by Arizona cops, ICE Director, John Morton:

RICHMOND, Va. —States should not follow Arizona’s lead and enact strict new Immigration laws because ridding the country of illegal immigrants is the federal government’s job, the director of the nation’s Immigration enforcement agency said Tuesday.

“As long as the federal government shows no interest in securing the border and no interest in internal enforcement to promote self-deportation, then states and localities will have to pick up the slack,” Prince William County Board of Supervisors chairman Corey A. Stewart said.

“Immigration  — the entry of people in and out of the country — is clearly a federal responsibility,” Morton said. (Chicago Tribune)

And clearly you don’t want to do your job! 😦

DETROIT — States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona’s immigration law.

“Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement.

“By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person’s immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government,” the brief states. (AP)

HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania joined eight other states on Wednesday in a legal brief supporting Arizona’s immigration law, just days after the Obama administration sued to block its enforcement.

“We believe the lawsuit filed by the federal government in this case undermines the constitutional authority of all our states,” said Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, who is also the Republican gubernatorial nominee.

Also joining the brief filed on Wednesday were Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

Amidst protests and the federal government’s opposition to Arizona’s new immigration law, Utah, South Carolina and Oklahoma have begun to draft similar anti illegal immigration laws. Legislatures in these 3 states have previously taken steps to curtail illegal immigration and believe these laws have a good chance of passing during the 2011 session.

Utah is currently proposing legislation that softens the Arizona law by requiring its law enforcement to have probable cause, rather than the lesser reasonable suspicion, before stopping and questioning someone they suspect of being illegal. Utah passed a law last year making it illegal to harbor or employ undocumented workers.

Oklahoma is considering furthering the Arizona law by allowing the state to seize the property of businesses that knowingly employ illegals. Oklahoma has previously passed legislation making it illegal to knowingly transport or shelter illegal immigrants and has blocked illegals from obtaining a drivers license or in-state tuition.

South Carolina is considering a bill that would closely reflect the Arizona law. They previously passed laws making it illegal to harbor or transport illegal immigrants and forcing businesses to check the immigration status of all workers.

Eric Holder is going to busy not reading these laws too and then suing these states as well.

Maybe they can just sue every legal American. 🙂

After all:

Washington Post political columnist Dana Milbank recently wrote a column about Arizona’s response to illegal immigration and called it a “pariah state.” However, voters nationwide are far more worried about the nation’s Political Class than about Arizona’s response to illegal immigration.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of voters are embarrassed by Arizona and its behavior. Sixty-two percent (62%) are not.

However, 59% are embarrassed by the nation’s Political Class and its behavior. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not.

Overall, by a three-to-one margin, voters see the Political Class as a greater threat to the nation than laws like the one passed recently in Arizona. Sixty-four percent (64%) see the Political Class as the bigger threat, while 20% say the opposite.

Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.

But what do the people know. The Political Class is vastly superior… 🙂

When Did You Stop Being a Racist!

The Logic Fallacy of ‘The Loaded Question’: A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

A “loaded question”, like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is “loaded” with that presumption. The question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

So, you put the twist on it, Have you stopped being a racist?

NAACP, the civil rights group’s president insists the {tea} party needs to “expel racists from the ranks.”

So when did you become a racist?

I became one simply because I disagree with “the first BLACK PRESIDENT”.

He is not just the President, he’s Black!

And you can’t disagree with him, if you’re white you’re a “Racist”. if your black, you’re an “Uncle Tom” and if your non-white but not black, well, you’re a traitor.

Now if this sounds like Pre-Civil Rights America, you wouldn’t be wrong.

“For more than a year we’ve watched as Tea Party members have called congressmen the N-word, have called congressmen the F-word. We see them carry racist signs and whenever it happens, the membership tries to shirk responsibility,” NAACP President Ben Jealous said in an interview with ABC News. “If the Tea Party wants to be respected and wants to be part of the mainstream in this country, they have to take responsibility.”

You have to stop beating your wife!

“ultra-nationalist and racist factions within the organization.”

“They need to be unequivocal and they need to be responsible and get the bigots out of their organization. It’s that simple,” Jealous added.

None of these accusations have ever been proven, even on tape. But that is not going to stop the logical fallacy of all logic fallacies (though the logic fallacy of  ad hominems usually follows it with the Left).

Benjamin Jealous, President and CEO of NAACP at the organization’s conference in Kansas City describes the Tea Party movement as a direct descendant of the racist White Citizens’ Council. (Southern opponents of racial integration organized white citizens councils to obstruct the implementation of the 1954 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to end school desegregation, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.)

So when are going to be the new Klu Klux Klan? 😦

NAACP Washington D.C. Director Claims Tea Parties are ‘Communists and Nazis’.

But it doesn’t stop there, mind you. Oh no….This from ABC News:

President Obama disparaged al Qaeda and affiliated groups’ willingness to kill Africans in a manner that White House aides say was an argument that the terrorist groups are racist.

Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself.  They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.”

So Now Al Qaeda is racist. So how long before we get guilt by racist association again?

Remember, during the Health care “debate” Tea Partiers were called “domestic terrorists”.

And this was terrorist attack by the a group of Islamic radicals that the President himself can’t even call terrorist when speaking about the War on Terrorism mind you.

So what about American Life, Mr. President?

As long as you’re a minority and willing to vote for him, you’re in like Flint.

Otherwise, you’re a racist or a traitor to your race. 🙂

Now that’s the way to have a “post-racial” “unified” America!!!

The St. Louis Tea Party reacted by passing its own formal resolution, which reads in part: “We settle our disputes civilly and avoid the gutter tactic of attempting to silence opponents by inflammatory name-calling. . . . The very term ‘racist’ has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including members of the NAACP.”

This clip of  Civil rights activist, Mike Myers (who is black)  on Hannity is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzTjjzTMHtU&feature=player_embedded#!

And if you’re Filipino and Female, and a conservative, aka Michelle Malkin…(and this was tamest one I found):

from George Dunn
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:06 PM
subject How Does a Dishonest CUNT Like You Exist?
hide details 7:06 PM (3 hours ago)

You are a true pathetic human being. Sad actually.

George Dunn, P.E.

Update: George Dunn has asked me to take his company name down (which I did), requested that I take down his e-mail (which I will not), and then sent me an “apology” with this laughable comment: “Still, I stand by my statement that the rhetoric being used on both sides of the aisle has ruined the chance to have an honest political debate in this country.”

Yep, the nutball who called me a “c**t” from his work e-mail is moaning about the lost opportunity to “have an honest political debate in this country.”

Ouch. Ow. Stomach hurting from laughing so hard. Ow.

If you want to see the the rest on her blog (be warned) : http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/08/youve-got-hate-mail-liberal-racism-gone-wild/

The Missouri NAACP holds a press conference to get the St Louis Prosecutor to drop charges against two men, one white and one black, who are accused of attacking a black man outside a tea party townhall in August 2009. In this video, the host of the press conference says Kenneth Gladney, the African American victim, is a poster child for Uncle Toms because he works against his race, and was photographed being kissed on the head by a European.

On The Video: “Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, uh, when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro, I mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here it is, the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster child picture, not working for our people.”

So when did you stop being a Racist? 🙂

Thankfully, the Tea Party movement is not racist or motivated by racism. It is motivated by love of country and all that is good and honest about our proud and diverse nation.

Like President Reagan, Tea Party Americans believe that “the glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past.” Isn’t it time we put aside the divisive politics of the past once and for all and celebrate the fact that neither race nor gender is any longer a barrier to achieving success in America – even in achieving the highest office in the land? (Breitbart)

It would be if the left didn’t consider the Nuclear Race Card as the only card in their deck.

But sadly, it is the only card in their deck.

I believe that the NAACP is making a grave mistake in stereotyping a diverse group of Americans who care deeply about their country and who contribute their time, energy and resources to make a difference.

But what do I know, I’m a racist, after all… 🙂

What is Old is New Again

First Lady Michelle Obama brought renewed energy to the NAACP today, delivering the keynote speech at the annual convention one day before the nation’s largest civil rights group is expected to condemn what it calls racist elements in the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party members have used “racial epithets,” have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protestors have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically,” according to the proposed resolution.

“We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made,” NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. “We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.”

Mind you Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of this earlier in the year.

In the environment where practically everything has a video recorder in it, he got bumpkiss.

It’s just fear mongering, inflammatory and more, well, racist on it’s face.

But since the Media is in bed with them, it will not be pointed out. It’s just accepted as fact that Tea Partiers are racists.

Simple. 🙂

Disagree with this president, you’re a racist.

Period.

“We see it as a threat to democracy. We see it as a threat to human rights. We certainly see it as a threat to civil rights,” McDowell said, adding that the resolution will likely pass when it’s voted upon Tuesday.

Mind you, the whole thing is baseless racism in of itself. But will the media care, No.

Hell, even the Justice Dept. won’t care, after all they won’t prosecute the New Black Panthers case in Philadelphia but will prosecute Arizona and they brought up the specter of “racial profiling” again this week.

And the media is ignoring it.

The resolution reportedly will call on “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties” and stand against the movement’s attempt to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

Reached for the Barf Bag yet? 😦

The NAACP wants to “create a climate where they can say that those on the right are in fact racist and those on the left are their saviors,” he added. “This is very much what the liberal agenda is about.” The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a former president of NAACP’s Garland, Texas, chapter who is now a leading Tea Party activist said the idea that the Tea Party is racist or is trying to instigate a racist climate is “simply a lie.”

But end justifies the means.

The liberals want to motivate the blacks and hispanics to come out in November and crush the racist whitey.

This is their strategy to stop the expected massive losses in House and possibly the Senate.

Be as racist as possible by preaching that the “other guy” is a racist!

And you’re racism is sanctimonious!!

A Race War against an alleged Race War against the people the raging the Race War.

Orwell would be proud.

“We have to close the enthusiasm gap,” NAACP president Ben Jealous said in an interview with the Associated PressTea Party is that people see them and think about periods in history when groups like them were much more powerful than they are now, and so a lot of what we spend energy doing is explaining to people what reality is, and that the reality is that the majority from 2008 still exists.”

The KKK, maybe??

The “enthusiasm gap”? So ginning up racist hatred and division is “enthusiasm”?? 😦

They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.

“You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?” asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is “not about a black or white issue.”

“It’s not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint,” she told The Associated Press. “All of us are taxed too much.”

“I’ve gotten the statement, ‘How can you not support the brother?'” said David Webb, an organizer of New York City’s Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama’s election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

“I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions,” he said. “They don’t agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community … Why can’t we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?”

Because it’s politically incorrect!

And your “brothers” will discriminate against you.

That’s Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association, folks! 🙂

If you disagree, you’re a racist.

Simple.

Even the ridiculous Lebron James bore-a-thon has been dragged into the racist arena by none other than Race-Baiter extraordinaire the Rev. Jesse Jackson:

Jesse Jackson criticized Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert on Sunday, saying Gilbert sees LeBron James as a “runaway slave” and that the owner’s comments after the free-agent forward decided to join the Miami Heat put the player in danger. “His feelings of betrayal personify a slave-master mentality. He sees LeBron as a runaway slave. This is an owner employee relationship — between business partners — and LeBron honored his contract.”

Good Grief…

Nothing is sacred.

Nothing is out of bounds.

When you will do anything, because the end justifies the means.

Even inflame a Race War that isn’t a Race War against an alleged but wholly-created-out-of-nothing Race War against you that doesn’t actually exist but it works for you if  the people think it does… 🙂

It’s Still about Race

Remember that “post-racial” President crap in 2008?

Jan. 2008: NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr observes the ascendance of Barack Obama as a presidential candidate and wonders whether the U.S. is entering a new, “post-racial” political era.

Well, it’s been nuked!

{Attorney General Eric} Holder said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the federal government was leading with its “strongest” argument in the suit filed Tuesday and would not rule out a second suit months down the road — if the law ends up going into effect.

“It doesn’t mean that if the law for whatever reason happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had … and see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact,” Holder said. “If that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.”

Holder, reacting to the firestorm of criticism from Republicans and border-state lawmakers, said the Justice Department decided to file the suit because Arizona’s immigration law is “inconsistent” with federal policy and the U.S. Constitution. He said there’s nothing to stop local jurisdictions and states from helping the government enforce immigration law, but described Arizona’s law as contradictory to what the federal government is trying to accomplish.

What they are trying to accomplish????

Say What??

Is he kidding?

Of course not.

So if the government loses, they will just file another lawsuit and and another and another.

That’s the Chicago Way.

Crush people you disagree with with lawyers!

********

The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, ostensibly aimed at reforming Wall Street and preventing a future financial crisis, will impose racial and gender quotas on financial institutions if passed, according to economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth.

Section 342 of the bill will establish Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in at least 20 federal financial services agencies. These offices will be tasked with implementing “standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.”

So called “fair inclusion” will apply to “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.”

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have “failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told The Daily Caller that the law amounts to a quota system.

“This is a radical shift in employment legislation,” she said. “The law effectively changes the standard by which institutions are evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and a certain percentage of minorities.”

So the Non-Minority Male can be discriminated against by law.

So quotas are now cool again.

Because it’s “fair” to discriminate against the evil, spawn of Satan, the Non-Minority Male. 🙂

**********

BREWSTER, Wash. — The Obama administration has replaced immigration raids at factories and farms with a quieter enforcement strategy: sending federal agents to scour companies’ records for illegal immigrant workers.

While the sweeps of the past commonly led to the deportation of such workers, the “silent raids,” as employers call the audits, usually result in the workers being fired, but in many cases they are not deported.

Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures. Thousands of those workers have been fired, immigrant groups estimate.

Mark K. Reed, president of Border Management Strategies, a consulting firm in Tucson that advises companies across the country on immigration law. “And there is no drama, no trauma, no families being torn apart, no handcuffs.”

No Press.

And no deportations or arrests so they just go somewhere else and it’s a game of shuffling the deck chairs.

It doesn’t really solve the problem.

But it looks like they are trying.

And the lack of press on it is curious. Is it because they don’t really do anything in the end?

And they know it.

Maybe they should call Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and complain. 🙂

In a public service announcement posted on the department’s website, Solis says workers — legal or not — have the right to fair wages.

“You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly,” she says. “And it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earn. Remember, every worker in America has the right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not. So call us.”

What the government gives with one hand it takes with the other. It’s only fair.

And if your a Non-Minority and Male, esp if you’re a “cracker”, just shut up and piss off you don’t mean anything to this administration.

That’s only Fair! 🙂