Gas Prices Skyrocketing As Part Of Obama’s and Progressive’s Plans

Posted in Democrat Government Control Obama Political Cartoon Progressives with No Comments

More:

Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.

Their goal?

To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.

These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.

The solution?

We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.

Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily    04/15/2011

Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.

Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.

What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.

Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."

A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."

According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."

Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."

Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:

• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.

This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.

If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.

The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."

The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.

The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."

This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/569370/201104151858/Our-Unelected-Rulers.aspx

Posted in Anti-American Democrat Far Left Government Control Ideology Liberal Nancy Pelosi Obama Personal rights Progressives Regulations Socialism with No Comments

More:

Legal Thoughts on Obamacare and Other Ramifications

The following article elucidates the cited issues challenging the constitutionality of the Obamacare legislation and provides supportive legal history/cases bolstering this position. His argument is quite cogent and may serve as an appetizer for the argued positions when the States’ case is ultimately heard by the Supreme Court.

Importantly, this case can be considered to be a watershed one that can serve to vanquish and turn back the tide of ever expanding federal government insinuation and encroachment into our daily activities. Thus, if it is struck down by the Supreme Court, this defeat may very well be the Waterloo of the Progressive agenda.

ObamaCare: The 28th Amendment?
Roger D. Luchs    April 17, 2011

ObamaCare is under assault, and properly so, because it tramples on enumerated constitutional rights of individuals and the states.  Given President Obama's predilection, it must also be viewed as his most aggressive effort to date to recast the Constitution to empower the Federal government to inject itself into areas of everyday life from which it has been fenced off since its inception.

In a 2001 interview, Obama expressed frustration that the Constitution was framed as a "limiting" document rather than an "empowering" document.  He understands that there is simply no prospect of amending it to bestow on Congress and him substantially broader authority to regulate broad sectors of the private economy.  His sole option, then, is to convince the public that 225 years of constitutional jurisprudence is wrong or outdated.

ObamaCare is his opening salvo for making his case.  No doubt there are more than a few liberal judges who will back him up.  Some have already ruled in Obama's favor.  If Obama succeeds even in only small part in recasting the Constitution as transferring powers to the central government beyond those expressly identified therein, then, to Obama and his liberal allies, it will be seen, to borrow a phrase, as "the  end of the beginning" rather than "the beginning of the end."

Obama knows better, of course, which is why he said what he did in his 2001 interview.  He can't change history, as much as he'd like to try, so he hopes to erase it from people's memories so over time, it is replaced with "progressive" reading of the Constitution.  Facts, however, are stubborn things.

The colonies ceded to the newly-established Federal government only those powers they agreed among themselves would benefit the separate states, collectively.  The Tenth Amendment reserved to the states those many powers not expressly ceded.  The Bill of Rights was adopted to ensure that the Federal government could not infringe on the liberties the Revolution was fought to restore and preserve.  Citizens of the colonies, and later of the territories, agreed to this arrangement with the understanding that the states and the Federal government would honor what was a set of covenants among them, which all agreed to honor so the nation would succeed.  The Civil War was fought, in part, because to the Southern states, the North, when it elected Lincoln, signaled its willingness to violate that compact, by changing one of the key terms to which it had agreed to obtain Southern participation in the union.  The Civil War, once concluded, was followed by several amendments which extended the reach of the Bill of Rights to state governments.

Though the Civil War brought forth a "new nation," by destroying the institution of slavery, and causing the amendment of the Constitution to protect freedoms of newly-liberated citizens, in all other respects, it reverted to what it was originally intended to be, i.e., a compact that ceded to the Federal government only those powers that would enable the nation to take on the character of a unified assemblage of willing actors.  Although in the New Deal, its powers were broadened, neither Roosevelt nor succeeding presidents sought to recast the fundamental nature of the Constitution.

Those states which have already challenged ObamaCare have focused, in part, on the Tenth Amendment's preservation of state power over those realms of governance and regulation not expressly ceded to the Federal government. Historically, each state has exercised sovereign authority over the conduct of the insurance business within its borders.  Although the Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that certain aspects of the insurance business were subject to the Commerce Clause and, therefore, the sovereignty of the states to regulate insurance within their respected borders could be preempted by Congress, in its regulation of interstate commerce, Congress rebelled.  It overrode the Court's ruling, by enacting legislation reaffirming the sovereignty of the states over the insurance business, except as specified in the statute.[1]  Absent a change in that law, then, the President's ability to infringe upon and override state sovereignty over insurance business conducted within the states' respective borders is minimal.  ObamaCare, nevertheless, includes several mandates to insurers which arguably exceed the Federal government's powers to regulate insurance.  However, those pale in comparison to the individual mandate.

It is that mandate that most clearly signals Obama's intent to "rewrite" the Constitution to dispense with its fundamental character.  The mandate implicates the Bill of Rights' guarantee that persons may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  Obama, in this regard, must be creative, because his mandate infringes upon the same right of privacy liberals fought for years to establish, in order to afford women a constitutional right to abortion.  It seems self-evident that if that right inhibits the Federal and state governments from intruding upon a woman's choice, then it also protects women, and men, from government interference in their choices affecting their personal physical and mental well-being.

ObamaCare's guiding principle, however, is not paternalism.  It is about the government's power to identify "public uses," as contemplated by the Fifth Amendment, and then compel unwilling individuals to engage in conduct that would, in the government's view, advance such uses.  Requiring someone to buy health insurance from a private insurer is no different, in kind, from forcing New London, Connecticut property owners to sell their land to a private development authority established by the city, so that it could devote that property to more "productive" uses.[2]  In the case of ObamaCare, the "public use" contemplated is a Federally- controlled, all encompassing healthcare system that would compel the citizenry to purchase insurance, to facilitate the government's exercise of control over how they make use of the healthcare system, which comprises about 16% of the private economy.  It is a means to achieving a Federally-prescribed end.

However unjust the circumstances in Ms. Kelo's case, at least the Fifth Amendment ensured that she would receive "just compensation". The Constitution expressly recognizes the doctrine of eminent domain, though that is an ancient doctrine founded on the principle that real property belongs to its owners, and they may not be compelled by government to part with it, except under limited circumstances, and for a fair price.

Anyone forced to buy health insurance will also be compelled to part with private property, i.e., private wealth, but unlike in Kelo, what he receives in return is what the government instructs him to receive, i.e. insurance from a private insurer, the content of which will be regulated, to some extent, by the Federal government. It is fair to ask, if the Constitution required amendment to authorize a Federal income tax which taxpayers must pay to avoid punishment, why should an amendment not also be a prerequisite to the implementation of ObamaCare?

If there is any doubt about government's power to compel ordinary citizens to engage in conduct mandated by the Federal government, one need only look at Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of Federal rent control statutes to allay such doubt.  Rent control, and its intersection with Constitutional rights, was taken up in challenges to rent control statutes enacted in World War I and World War II.  In two precedential decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws were constitutional, because they were adopted as temporary measures, enacted by Congress in the exercise of its police power, to meet the exigencies of  the pending wars.

In its decisions,  the Court, both implicitly and explicitly, focused on provisions in each statute that carved out an exception for property owners who wanted to remove their properties from the rental market.  Each statute reserved to this right to landlords, even if they did so solely to avoid being subjected to Federal regulation.  In the decision upholding the World War I statute,  Justice Holmes, writing for the majority, commented that "there comes a point at which the police power ceases and leaves only that of eminent domain."[3]  Applying this same reasoning to ObamaCare, anyone forced to purchase health insurance will find himself entangled in the Federal regulatory scheme that will accompany that law's implementation, but, unlike government-imposed rent control, without any viable way to escape participation.

It is no answer that ObamaCare offers the  uninsured  a choice, i.e. the option to  pay a fine in lieu of mandated  health insurance.  Under the doctrine of eminent domain, there is no "option" to pay a fine in lieu of selling one's property to the government, but the government must pay the property owner the value of his property and the property owner may use that payment as he wishes.   Under ObamaCare, the government will pay the involuntary purchaser nothing in exchange for forcing him to buy health insurance.  The uninsured's choice, then, falls somewhere  between Scylla and Charybdis.

Beyond this, the Eighth Amendment, which bars "cruel and unusual punishments," contains a separate provision which raises an additional doubts about ObamaCare's constitutionality.  That provision prohibits government from imposing "excessive fines."  This language was included to prevent the arbitrary use of what in feudal times were known as amercements, employed by the crown to punish those who offended the king, or violated the king's law.  Amercements had sometimes been used to ruin people financially.  Because ObamaCare's fines are intended as punishment for those who refuse to buy health insurance, they too, may be excessive, at least in some instances.  Absent a binding court ruling in which it is held that the statutory fines may be imposed uniformly, they are ostensibly subject to review on a case by case basis.  It is doubtful that the blanket imposition of more than a token fine without regard to each person's circumstances can withstand judicial scrutiny, except, of course, by liberal judges who are indifferent to the merits of challenges to ObamaCare's constitutionality.

To Obama and his fellow "progressives", it is too much to ask that the compact upon which the nation was founded should stand in their way.  The Administration and the political movement it represents are intent on changing the rules of the game for all times, and not just to legitimize ObamaCare.  If they succeed, over two centuries of jurisprudence consistent with the Founders' intent will be replaced by a new jurisprudence that leaves the Constitution, as drafted and originally adopted, just dust in the wind.  Over generations, any understanding of the framers' original intent will gradually fade into the background.

But properly and aggressively challenged, ObamaCare could become this century's Hindenburg.  If it does crash and burn, there is little doubt that whatever takes its place will have to heed the limits on government's power set by the Constitution.  If fully informed, the public will expect, and demand, no less.
________________________________________
[1]   United States Dept. of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993)

[2]   Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

[3]   Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154(1921).  The World War II law is addressed in Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517 (1944).  ("There is no requirement that the apartments in question be used for purposes which bring them under the Act.")

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamacare_the_28th_amendment.html

Posted in Constitution Constitutionality Ideology Obama Obama ObamaCare Progressives Supreme Court with No Comments

More:

We Must Vehemently, Relentless and Vociferously Fight Against Political Correctness, Corruption and Threats to Our Rights and Freedoms

The following article is a well-written and vehement indictment of the passivity of the silent majority and the incomprehensible acceptance by individuals and certain ethnic groups of the political correctness run amok, egregious or corrupt behavior and associations by politicians, etc. Too many have become complacent, silent and feckless. They are afraid to take a stance, whether public or not, against the de facto abrogation of our rights.

This must not be allowed to continue unopposed!

The Silence of the Jews
James Lewis April 10, 2011

We live in an age of public cowardice. That goes for millions of Americans and Europeans, even in the face of simple PC witch-hunts that don't end up burning or jailing people, but only try to destroy reputations and careers. Human beings have stood up to a lot worse than Political Correctness. But we can't seem to rouse ourselves to oppose it. The liberal bullies keep winning, because most of us just look the other way.

Decent people constantly get bashed and bullied by those coneheads at CNN, truly ignorant show-biz airheads, who take it upon themselves to dictate what we, a free people, are allowed to do and say in public. But our constitutional rights of free speech and assembly mean nothing if we do not exercise them. Silence means consent.

This is hugely embarrassing. Where is our self-respect? When did we lose our guts? Why did we cede the moral high ground to bullies and moral throwbacks from the ancient desert? Who made up those rules? I didn't. Did you?

Today we feel guilty about imaginary sins ginned up by the lowlifes at the New York Times and the Washington Post. This is Winston Churchill turned upside-down: Never have so many surrendered so much to so few. Can you really imagine apologizing to the likes of Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton, or to Obama, for the decisions you have made in your life? But that is exactly what we are doing as a people. Michael Barone, the most distinguished political scientist among the political pundits, has labeled this "Gangster Government."

Mr. Obama just went to visit Al Sharpton, right after announcing his new election campaign. Does that give you faith in his moral sensitivity? Or does it just add more evidence to the same story we know so well? And in that case, how could you possibly support Obama or his party?

Internationally things are even worse. We kowtow to an endless freak-show of depraved clowns at the UN and in foreign capitals. Madman Gaddafi goes around parading with a personal body guard of thirty official virgins bearing Kalashnikovs, an internationally famous cross-dressing exhibitionist who has exploded a civilian aircraft over Scotland and had a police woman in London killed by rifle fire. Gaddafi is known to be a madman by all the Arab world. The things he has done to his people are too awful for words. Yet the UN Human Rights Commission now has Muammar Gaddafi, the genocidal Sudan, and Ahmadinejad as full voting members -- and the liberal media are afraid to say how utterly insane that is.

In a healthy society, people who defend the indefensible have their reputations ruined for life. If we defrock and jail abusive priests, well, let's also do that to power-mad, abusive celebrities and political demagogues. Whoopi Goldberg, of all people, defended a criminal warrant-escaping Oscar-winning child rapist with the immortal words, "It wasn't really ‘rape-rape.'"

Well, Whoopi-Whoopi, I'm going to turn your flick-flicks ‘off-off' forever. I challenge anybody reading this to do the ‘same-same.' If enough of us refuse to pay a penny to companies that own and pull the strings on the depraved idols of the culture, their jobs will be ‘gone-gone.' Why can't the normal and decent people of this country get it together? That's the easy part. Don't just sit there, do it.

The Camerons and Merkels and Sarkozys had their bluff called by Libya just this week, and they've crumpled again. After calling for Libya to overthrow that tyrannical freak they can't find the jet planes to keep the pressure on. This is utterly disgusting. Civilized nations hold those who aid and abet criminal actions responsible under the law. Aiding and abetting the enemies of civilization is much worse than mere tax evasion, which the Democratic Party apparently practices as a routine business precaution.

The abhorrence we feel for this level of moral depravity has not changed one little bit since the Nazis. Just because it takes place in Europe or the Middle East does not mean that we should support bloody totalitarians. Your local college campus has been doing exactly that since the 1960s, and we, as a people, have never raised a word of protest, because, after all, there should be academic freedom on campus. That is why the totalitarians of the Left now controls speech on your schools and colleges. Yes, the neo-Stalinist left is doing it --- but we are all submitting to their malevolence without protest. That makes us less than heroic, to say the least.

The United Nations engages in twisted demagogy every single day, and everybody who reads the news headlines, even filtered through the moral midgets of the media, knows that perfectly. This is how one-party Machines operate: Da Mare is as corrupt as the day is long, but nobody can fight City Hall.

Well, that's how oppressed peoples have to act in a brutal tyranny. But in a democracy, people like us take back power at the polls -- if -- and only if -- they can to face the truth. If we do not act, it's because we lack the simple moral fiber our parents and grandparents had. It's not hard and dangerous for us to act. All it takes is concerted action by all the people who are ashamed and embarrassed by the moral depravity of our political leadership. We can stop paying corrupt corporations that control morally depraved celebrities. We can stop paying advertisers who collude with the corrupt and mendacious media. We can start telling them exactly what we think about them. You have free speech. Nobody has beaten you up or thrown you in jail, the way they do in other places. You have freedom, but if you do not exercise it you might as well be living in the gruesome little tyranny of Myanmar.

Our general gutlessness is even more deplorable for those who know the past so well, including American Jews, who can see Israel being more and more surrounded by morally backward reactionaries armed with rockets and missiles (and nukes in another year). We are doing nothing, while America and Israel, and decent Europeans wherever they still exist, are being slandered and scapegoated. No wonder they think they are winning.

Saddam Hussein, Kaddafi, Ahmadinejad, every sleazy little upstart generalissimo in the world gets to spit in the face of the two most decent nations in the world: America and Israel. Why is that? Where is our self-respect? Why do the worst abusers get endless chances to rip the most decent and peaceful people in the world? And our media morons collude with them?

The Democrats command the loyalty of most American Jews. But the Democrats have been penetrated by those who hate tolerance, democracy, and respect for sovereign nations. The Left has played American Jews for suckers. Obama is no exception -- he is supported by an inner circle of ideological fanatics some of whom were born into Jewish families, but somehow never got the point of civilized behavior. Part of that point is: It doesn't matter who you are. It matters how you act. If you collude with evil, you are a criminal in your heart, and perhaps in fact. Civilized nations repudiate criminals no matter who they are.

Israel just convicted its ex-President Katzav of the crime of rape. That crime is not something to feel proud about, but the prosecution is. Few countries in the world can act with that kind of moral seriousness and consistency. The United States used to be one of them. Today I wonder if we still have the simple integrity to administer equal justice for all. If the Left keeps winning, we will lose whatever moral integrity we have left, because arbitrary power goes with arbitrary corruption. We see it every day in Washington, D.C.

Jews are among the most abused peoples in history -- not the only ones, but abused badly enough to remember what it's like. Jews should therefore be the most alert to the rise of hate preachers, the kind of thing that the MEMRI website translates into English every day. In a decent world the New York Times would simply take a running RSS feed from the MEMRI website. It would easily triple their accuracy score. The NYT could restore its reputation for honesty and integrity in a single instant, and even rescue its crumbling business model. Obviously they are far too corrupt and morally blind to do anything like that.

I don't personally like the idea of burning books. It goes against my grain. But I would symbolically burn Hitler's Mein Kampf and the works of Jozef Stalin, and so many other books that are brainwashing ignorant people today -- symbolically only, to demonstrate contempt for the worst evils human beings are capable of. That seems to me to be a moral act, in a world where PR stunts govern the headlines every day. If the Left burns the American Flag and tears up the US Constitution, perhaps there is a role for symbolically demonstrating the moral depravity of the Left and Islamic fascism. Killing an innocent human being is infinitely worse than barbecuing a call to genocide and persecution.

A small minority of Americans and Europeans, Christian and Jews and non-religious, have long been aware of the rise of neo-fascism from the Left and Islamic reactionaries. But the majority are sound asleep, in psychological denial, or just afraid to speak up: Like lambs to the slaughter. It is a dreadful thing to behold.

Conservatives keep asking why Jews vote for the Left. Part of the answer seems to be that Jews get suckered by utopian promises. If only we elect a clean-looking black Democrat from the Chicago Machine to the American presidency, all the problems of the Middle East will be solved! Jews may yearn for peace because they have felt the ravages of war and persecution. They may easily be taken in by false hopes that all it will take is a little bit of compromise, a little peace talk, for everything to turn out all right in the Middle East.

But there is no excuse for willing stupidity. I don't care how good your intentions are, if you do not have the courage to open your eyes you are colluding with evil.

Even before Obama, Israel was the only nation in the world directly threatened by nuclear proliferation to mad regimes -- covered up by UN criminocrat Mohammed El Baradei, who naturally received a Nobel Prize for his collusion with the nuclear maniacs in Tehran. Just a few days ago El Baradei came out of the closet by calling for Egypt to go to war against Israel if it defends itself against rocket barrages from Gaza. It's part of his election campaign in Egypt, believe it or not. Was anybody surprised? If you were, you haven't been paying attention. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of malignant evil is much, much worse.

Has anybody noticed these facts at the New York Times, where Baradei was butt-kissed while he was peddling lies about Iranian nukes? Is anybody over there waking up? I don't see it.

Ahmadinejad is celebrating a nuclear Armageddon to come, and the Left is getting panicked by the American Tea Party.

Please. It is beyond belief.

The New York Times covered up the worst crimes of Hitler and Stalin when its correspondents knew exactly what was going on there. Those facts are known beyond reasonable doubt. Today the NYT-wits are covering up Iranian nukes and the spread of Islamic fascism, when they again know exactly what is going on. At some point collusion becomes a crime. Media collusion is what keeps corrupt political machines alive. It follows that the corporate owners and executives of media companies must be held morally liable for the malfeasance they cover up. They do not deserve to make millions by spreading toxic lies. If they engage in systematic libel they should be held to the same standards that ordinary people are. In many countries deliberate libel that does material harm to innocent people is a civil offense.

Turkey is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and pro-democratic Turks have been purged from the police and the armed forces. Egypt is going the same way, after Obama brutally pushed Mubarak out of power. The totalitarian Left is treacherously spreading slanders, like the Goldstone Report, about Israel -- the same slanders it propagated about the United States in the case of Abu Graib (where the goofball perps were already arrested and headed for trial when the media got the photos, and used Abu Graib to bash George W. Bush for five years).

You can't read about the Left over the past two centuries without knowing they are murderous enemies to civilized life anywhere in the world. That is why they keep making friends among the worst totalitarians -- the ones that tyrannize women and kill children, the ones that promote suicide bombing of innocent civilians by the thousands. The totalitarian Left worked hand in hand with the Nazis, and today they are doing the same with reactionary throwbacks in Tehran, Cairo, and Jeddah. Don't take my word for it. Just watch them do it. It's not a secret. They don't even bother to keep it secret.

If your eyes are already open, talk to everybody you know. Don't be intimidated. You live in a free country, and you are keeping it free by exercising your rights.

Two years into Obama's term the Middle East is falling apart. The Saudis are running scared, because Obama just delights in destroying all the unstable Arab regimes -- and the Saudis are none too stable themselves. Even medieval Saudi Arabia thinks America is run by un homme aliene, as Sarkozy called him. Iran is sending modern warships into the Mediterranean. Russia has a new naval base in Syria, and Assad has a second nuclear plant that's just been uncovered.

Meanwhile Obama is running for reelection, and I'll bet that a majority of brain-dead liberals will vote for him again. Obama has made nice with the most dangerous tyrants in Iran and North Korea, and now he is doing the most amazing thing any American president has ever done: He is deliberately pushing unstable allies into collapse.

Rumor has it that even Hillary is ready to leave. I wonder if she has the guts to tell the truth? If so, I might even vote for her. My standard is now truth-telling: Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Hillary, I don't care. We are suffering from toxic lies, and a refreshing breath of truth reminds us that truth exists.

Ordinary Americans have allowed one of our political parties to be taken over by the totalitarian Left -- the people who instantly try to control your free speech, because they know that if you can be made to shut up about politics you can be rendered helpless. That is why there are speech codes on American campuses and in our news rooms. Speech codes are inherently totalitarian. The Left has totalitarian swings. Since the "Berkeley Free Speech Movement" of the 60s the Left has slammed the free speech door shut. We now have Forbidden Speech from the Left. That is why they are attacking the free web through the lie of "net neutrality."

We live in an age of corruption, and an age of cowardice among free peoples.

But the silence of American Jews on the fate of Israel is the most ominous reality today.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_silence_of_the_jews.html

Posted in Freedom of Speech Liberal Media - Far Left PC - political correctness Progressives with No Comments

More:

Obama’s Racist Accusations and Commentaries Is Pure Evil and Destructive

The following scathing commentary by Lloyd Marcus, a fairly well known conservative and a spokesperson for the Tea Party who happens to be black, rebukes Obama on his unwarranted and irresponsible racist vitriol and overt divisiveness. The “president’s” relentless race based commentary is fomenting racial strife and antipathy, further dividing our nation. Whether this is being done partly to advance his socialist agenda is not entirely clear.

Regardless, this speaks volumes of a man who has shown himself to be evil, racist, criminal, tyrannical and narcissistic (and much more or is that less?).

Obama Calling Tea Party Racist Reveals A Far More Disturbing Reality
Lloyd Marcus   March 10, 2011

Please consider the validity of what I am about to say rather than having a knee jerk reaction dismissing it as being "over the top." Folks, we have an irresponsible egocentric evil man occupying the Oval Office.

The Democrats and the liberal mainstream media sold the American people on Obama, "the man."  Despite Obama's zero experience at running anything, they said a leader with his spirit and heart was "what we have been waiting for".

Fearful of criticizing our first black president, politicians politely say, "President Obama's policies have been unfruitful," while ignoring the huge elephant in America's living room.

The elephant of which I speak and America's major problem is "Obama, the man"; socialist, divisive and evil.

My dad says a snake can stay under water a very long time just like a fish. But eventually, it must come up for air. Why? Because, it is not a fish. It is a snake. Obama continues to come up for air revealing his true self.

President Obama said the Tea Party is racist. That's the unmistakable meaning of his statement that race is a "key component" of Tea Party protests. The liberal media, NAACP and Democrats have been relentlessly promoting this same baseless allegation. When final confirmation comes down from the highest office in the land, the Oval Office, that the Tea Party is racist; the allegation becomes "official" in the minds of millions. President Obama is slandering millions of decent hard working Americans who simply disagree with his progressive/socialist agenda.

Think of the repercussions. Obama's indictment of the Tea Party will birth tremendous racial discord across America in schools, churches, and civic life.  Obama's proclamation will cause Americans to double down on their already extreme caution when criticizing our black president.  Sadly, I suspect such intimidation is a part of Obama's plan; anything to empower his mission to "fundamentally transform America."

Make no mistake about it, Obama and company have successfully intimidated many white Americans into not dissing the black president in public.

I stopped in a fast food restaurant for a burger. Around fifteen white seniors were having lunch. I overheard them ranting about Obama's overreaches and socialist policies. Upon seeing me, a black man, they became silent. I was tempted to say, "Please continue, I whole-heartedly agree with you!" Too bad they did not notice my Tea Party Express t-shirt.

Barack Hussein Obama received more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history. So Obama alleging millions of Tea Party patriots are simply upset because America elected a black president is disingenuous, absurd and manipulative.

Obama is exploiting his race and sacrificing national race relations solely to implement his progressive/socialist agenda. Callously and strategically, the President of the United States is pitting millions of black and white Americans against each other. Lord help us, that is pure evil.

Quoting deceased make-up legend, Mary Kay, "Leadership spreads from the top down."

A fine black young adult whom I have known for years has always appeared to be racially color blind.  He idolizes Obama.  Suddenly, I have noticed this kid beginning to view everything through a racial lens. His latest absurd statement, "Friends" is a racist TV show because there are no black cast members."

While I admit this example is anecdotal, I suspect Obama's divisiveness is inspiring millions of Americans to choose sides along racial lines.

Before knowing the facts, Obama immediately assumed the white police officer was guilty of racial profiling in the Professor Gates case.  This suggests Obama has racial emotional baggage.  Such a luxury cannot be afforded the president of "all Americans."

Obama is not who most Americans thought he was and is exactly who the liberal mainstream media hoped he would be: their Great Black Hope for implementing their progressive/socialist agenda.

They will do whatever it takes to protect Obama; ignoring his character flaws, lawlessness, deceptions and lies. If Obama says two plus two equals five, the liberal media will defend it as being the "New Math."  We cannot trust the liberal media to tell us the truth regarding Obama.

Obama's inauguration brought tears to the eyes of millions of Americans. Blacks are only 12% of our nation's population, which means it took many million white votes to put Obama in the Oval Office. Thus, most of the American tears of joy were white.

President Obama is fully aware of this truth.

Obama willfully dividing Americans by exploiting his race for political gain is a despicable betrayal of the whites who elected him. But even more disturbing, it reveals the true character of the man running our country. America deserves much, much better.

"One Million People To Defeat Barack Obama 2012". Please join us!
Please sign and encourage your friends to sign this petition at www.ipetitions.com/petition/1milliontodefeatbarackobama
LloydMarcus.com
Spokesperson & Entertainer of Tea Party Movement & Tea Party Express.
The American Tea  Party Anthem cd/album.
Confessions of a Black Conservative, written by Lloyd Marcus & foreword by Michelle Malkin
President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of ALL Colors)
Join Lloyd Marcus Facebook Page

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_calling_tea_party_racist.html

Posted in Arrogance Ideology Obama Progressives Racism Socialism Tea Parties with No Comments

More:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Speaks Out in the Defense of Our Liberties

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently spoke to a conservative group regarding the crucial importance of Americans becoming well educated about the workings of our country so that we can well defend our liberties and any threats to them. This was essentially directed at the present radical transformation of this country orchestrated by Obama and his fellow Progressive henchmen.

If we don't fight back, we lose our country.

‘Defending Liberty’: Defiant Clarence Thomas Slams Critics for ‘Undermining’ High Court
Scott Baker   February 27, 2011

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – his impartiality under attack from liberals because of his attendance at a meeting of conservative donors sponsored by the Koch brothers and his wife’s tea party activism – struck a defiant tone in a Saturday night speech in Charlottesville, Va., telling a friendly audience that he and his wife “believe in the same things” and “are focused on defending liberty.”

Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”

He also lashed out at his critics, without naming them, asserting they “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution. Such criticism, Thomas warned, could erode the ability of American citizens to fend off threats to their way of life.

“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that – that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties,” he said, according to a partial recording of the speech provided to POLITICO by someone who was at the meeting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/defending-liberty-defiant-clarence-thomas-slams-critics-for-undermining-high-court/

Posted in Freedom Government Control Obama Progressives Supreme Court Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Videos with No Comments

More:

Elucidating the Blunder That Obama and the Democratic Party Committed in Selecting to Support the Public Union in Wisconsin

The following article elucidates the involvement of the White House and the Democratic Party in supporting the public union in Wisconsin and how their choice to battle here might have been a major blunder that can have a domino effect.

Richard Pollock stated it succinctly and definitively:

“The decision by the Democratic Party and its allies to draw a line in the sand in Wisconsin was the wrong strategy, in the wrong state, at the wrong time, on the wrong issue, and executed in the wrong way.”

Let’s hope that is the Lexington and Concord of a revolution of crucial changes regarding the public unions and their relationship with State governments and to their benefactor taxpayers.

Why Obama and the Dems Blundered in Wisconsin
Richard Pollock    February 21, 2011

It is becoming clear that the Wisconsin battle was a strategic political blunder for President Obama and the Democratic Party. The decision by the Democratic Party and its allies to draw a line in the sand in Wisconsin was the wrong strategy, in the wrong state, at the wrong time, on the wrong issue, and executed in the wrong way.

The White House, which for the last two years seemed so tone deaf over health care, jobs, and the economy, may again be displaying a stunning political miscalculation. Unless the Democrats pull the plug on their ill-conceived Wisconsin campaign, the statewide and national backlash now beginning to emerge may continue to resonate all the way to the 2012 presidential elections.

It will take time to unearth exactly who designed and sold the Wisconsin strategy to the president. But what is emerging is that the White House may have developed two strategies for 2011, not one. The first track, clear to us all, was for the president to tack to the right on the national stage, seek the statesmanlike high road, and negotiate deals with national Republicans.

The second strategy, now emerging, was to pick a target outside the beltway that could serve as a broad political narrative, attack it, nationalize it, and use it to rally Obama’s demoralized political base. It was a bold strategy. They chose Madison, Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-tightening initiative, and his effort to rein in public employee unions. They further decided to let loose angry union members serve as shock troops. Wisconsin would be the first test case, which would be replicated in other states, including Ohio, Indiana, and Idaho.

The plan seems to have been born both within the war room of the Democratic National Committee and within the Oval Office. The overall coordination for the operation was the remnants of the president’s 2008 political campaign organization, Organizing for America (OFA). The strategy would be launched by the DNC and by the president, who, during the height of the Egyptian crisis, incongruously granted an exclusive interview to a Milwaukee TV reporter over union policy. While Cairo burned, he took time to decry a Wisconsin governor’s effort to rein in the budget and limit union benefits. Shaping the narrative for the attack, he said that Gov. Scott Walker’s effort “seems like more of an assault on unions.” [1]

The Wisconsin political blitzkrieg on Gov. Walker was not a spontaneous eruption. It is now clear that it was a highly organized operation planned in Washington, D.C., to unleash a national counterattack on the gains made by Republicans and Tea Party activists. Getting OFA and the president to act in close coordination was itself no small feat. The plan included busing in thousands of government employees, arranging for Democratic lawmakers to flee to an adjoining state, flying speakers and political organizers into Madison, organizing thousands to leave their jobs in public safety and in classrooms, and staging rallies inside and outside the statehouse. They even enticed sympathetic doctors to draft bogus doctor excuses for government workers.

It all worked like a charm. Except that it struck all the wrong notes and portrayed all the wrong images. There is nothing more unseemly that to see a president serve as healer in Tucson and a political hack in Madison.

For in the end, the images and messages tell the story. The showdown in Madison pits pampered public employees against hard-pressed taxpayers. It portrays union workers as an angry mob against those seeking orderly legislative deliberation. It paints Democratic lawmakers as outlaws on the run, undermining the democratic process. It launched a national debate about the generous salaries and benefits for government workers during a time of economic shortages. And it showcased school teachers who abandoned their children in favor of narrow, partisan political gain.

This is a bad unraveling of a political campaign.

The miscalculation by Democrats is understandable. They still believed Wisconsin was one of the key populist centers for Midwest radicalism. Living on history long past, they envisioned Madison as ground zero for a resurrection of progressivism. It was, after all, the home for progressives’ champions, whose heroes included the La Follette family, led by former Governor Robert La Follette, Sr. The La Follette family has been a radical left Wisconsin political dynasty for the last century. Robert Sr. ran for president under the Progressive Party; his son succeeded him as governor. His other son, Robert, Jr., served in the state Senate for 22 years and led the pre-WWII isolationist movement, a precursor to the present day anti-war movement. In 2010, Doug La Follette was the only surviving Democrat to win statewide office in the November election.

But there also is the lure of Madison, Wisconsin for radicals, many of whom populate the political leadership of the Democratic Party and the unions. Madison was the Midwest home for the far-left counterculture and for the violent, revolutionary Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, an anti-war van loaded with six barrels of explosives detonated outside the Mathematics building [2] [2]at the University of Wisconsin, killing a physicist who was working late at night. The bombing became a sensation for SDS, and overnight the four suspects were put on the FBI’s Most Wanted List. During one of the many Madison political protests, there was a three-day riot that led to the arrest, twice, of a student activist named Paul Soglin. He was later rewarded by being repeatedly elected mayor of Madison [3].

Surely behind this long history of progressive left politics, Democrats and union organizers might have thought Madison would be the first place to strike against the belt-tightening moves of a new, untested Republican governor. A line was drawn in the sand, and Madison would become ground zero in the unions’ effort to turn around their political prospects.

But they perhaps were tone deaf about Madison, just as they have been tone deaf nationally. They forgot that Wisconsin has been turning from blue, to purple, to bright red. In the 1990s it was former Republican Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson who drew another line in the sand over welfare reform. He won, and President Bill Clinton signed into law a sweeping change that sought to reward work over welfare. Thompson also was a champion for school choice, a campaign bitterly fought by the same teachers’ union that abandoned their classrooms last week for partisan gain.

Then came the latest 2010 election in Wisconsin in which there was a statewide sweep for Republicans [4]. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), long considered safe, was defeated. The governor and lieutenant governor swept to power. Today, five of the eight members of the state’s U.S. congressional delegation are Republicans. The sole Democrat in the government is Doug La Follette, who is secretary of state. The legislature is in Republican hands. And the architect of the victorious 2010 Wisconsin campaign was GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.

So the showdown in Wisconsin may assume national proportions. Priebus now will aim a national campaign against President Obama and the Democrats. And the Democrats chose Priebus’ state as their launching pad to smash Republicans.

The Wisconsin battle is not over. But it could be the beginning of a moment of clarity in which a small but entrenched special interest — government workers — is dislodged by fed-up taxpayers. And it could be a contagion that spreads to other states across the country.

UPDATE: Politico’s Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman report this morning [5] on how the unions’ high-risk Wisconsin strategy may come at a potentially steep cost: “Some strategists and labor officials watching the protest conflagration from the outside are beginning to fret that a large-scale defeat in Wisconsin [6] will have a devastating ripple effect, weakening labor state by state throughout the rest of the country.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-obama-and-the-dems-blundered-in-wisconsin/?singlepage=true

Posted in Democrat Gov. Scott Walker Government spending Labor Unions Obama Progressives Republican State Public Unions Taxpayer with No Comments

More:

The Difference Between Free Enterprise and an Oppressive Punitive Government

Posted in Capitalism Economy Liberal Obama Political Cartoon Progressives Taxes with No Comments

More: