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

Local, state and federal governments are becoming increasingly intrusive in our private lives in accord with the liberal philosophy that "the government knows better".

Guess what (there is no need for guessing here)?

The government doesn't know better and it has no right dictating our choices (as long they are "legal").

In a Chicago school, children are not allowed to bring in their own lunch anymore because the administration feels that the parents are incapable of feeding their children properly. The school forces the children to eat there ... and what it deems that they should eat. California and N.Y. are the most well known for their restrictive, intrusive and punitive culinary restrictions for restaurants.

Soon, governments may decide what kind of toilet paper we must use and the number of sheets that can be used before being subjected to a fine.

These intrusive actions, signs of large and powerful governments and unrestrained politicians, must be abrogated!

This is a position of weakness which actually serves to “protect” the terrorists. The Islamic terrorists, in turn, clearly see these actions as signs of weakness and vulnerability which motivates them even more to escalate the violence.

Being apologetic and denying the obvious will not allow us to meet this malignant scourge. Only by assuming a position of strength can we attempt to successfully tackle this.

We need to resolutely and loudly let the world know that their behavior will not be tolerated, that they will not be allowed to impose of Sharia law in this country, we will not abridge any of our freedoms such as that of free speech so as not to “offend” Islam, and that we are united in strength against their violence, intolerance and subjugation.

We should also let them know that we know that these issues are not isolated incidents perpetrated by a few but instead are reflective of a basic noxious, violent tenet of Islam which is upheld by a majority of Muslims.

And finally: ISLAM IS NOT A RELGION OF PEACE!

Obama's Mishandling of the Quran-Burning
Monte Kuligowski  April 09, 2011

A Jed Clampett-type figure burns a Quran somewhere in Tennessee, and the Muslim world breaks out in an uproar. In keeping with Islam's spirit of peace, rioting, effigy-burning, and the indiscriminate killing of over twenty people accompanied the protests. The U.S. can tolerate protesting and flag-burning, but the disproportional response of murdering and beheading is where the line must be drawn.

But no such line has been drawn by the Obama administration.

In his response to the situation, President Obama notes that both Quran-burning and murder are wrong. True, but his words are meaningless without distinction. Here's how Obama responded:

The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity.

No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act.

The question is not whether a religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, but whether the U.S. government will tolerate the same. Free speech and expression, even the offensive style, are tolerated by the American system; murder is not.

By omitting the free speech rights of Terry Jones, President Obama has sent the wrong message to militant Islamists. Mr. Obama needed to explain that freedom means that even offensive expression is protected.

If Mr. Obama is not willing to proclaim that American values of free expression will not be suppressed by government out of fear of terrorism and murder, then we have already lost the terrorists' war.

The murdering Islamists need to be informed in clear terms that any harm caused to U.S. citizens will be met with a military offensive the likes of which will cause Islamists to beg for mercy.

As Americans, we may strongly disagree when the U.S. flag is burned in protest, whether at home or abroad. We may also strongly disagree when the Bible is torched in Muslim countries or when Christianity is "desecrated" by federally funded artists. Yet Americans overwhelmingly support the free expression rights of those with whom we disagree (so long as the expression is made with one's private property).

Radical Muslims work themselves up into killing frenzies over words against Islam, writings, cartoons, Quran-burnings, et al., and they will not be content until offense to Islam is outlawed. Of course, what we do or allow in our country should be none of these radicals' concern. Islam has no sacred protection status from insult in the United States -- and hopefully, it never will.

But if Senators Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham have their way, the federal government may intervene to limit free expression, which would implicitly protect Islam from offense. And I can't imagine that Barack Obama would oppose federal intervention.

Reid and Graham appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" and discussed the possibility of congressional hearings on the Jones matter. Senator Graham told Bob Schieffer: "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy."

That has to be one of the lamest excuses for federal intervention into an area the First Amendment clearly prohibits the U.S. Congress from entering. The free speech restrictions during World War II had everything to do with loyalty to the U.S. and nothing to do with offending the Germans or the Japanese. One could burn as many copies of Mein Kampf as one wished without fear of government reprisal.

The difference is that during World War II, the objective of the United States was complete and total victory and unconditional surrender of our enemies. The U.S. wasn't real concerned about "putting our troops at risk" by offending our enemies. Indeed, we were more concerned with killing our enemies.

The motives for the murders at the U.N. office in Afghanistan and elsewhere are no more significant than the motives of Terry Jones.

We could try to understand Jones' standpoint. We could try to understand the Muslim mobs. We could try, but in context of constitutional discourse, it's irrelevant. Let's leave feelings and emotions to the therapists.

So as not to offend Islam, our servicemen are currently forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, with no clear definition of victory. Only in a politically correct type of war does it make sense to not offend our enemies.

If we offend them, they will kill us. Therefore, reasons the Obama administration, to stop them from killing us, we must not offend them. That makes sense to leftists, but it's a weak and dangerous policy stance to take with radical Islam.

On the horizon is the question of whether we are willing to suppress our freedoms in order to appease the violent faction of the Muslim world -- a faction which makes up a considerable slice of Islam. It is like a campfire that has broken out of its boundaries and which must be stomped out quickly lest it spread as an uncontrollable wildfire. If the U.S. and the West are not willing to completely stomp out radical Islam, I'm afraid we will soon be surrendering our freedoms.

If we don't wake up, offense to Islam will someday trump American freedom.

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

The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP), buried deep within the leviathan legislation, provides $5 billion to private companies, states and labor unions that is to be used for the payment of health insurance for those who are retiring and are under age 65. Not surprisingly, a significantly disproportionate amount of the money is going to unions, and companies and states that are strong supporters of the Democrats. Some is even going to the "mainstream" media (the Left) which, of course, doesn't hurt with regard to even more positive, gushing press coverage of Obama and the Democrats.

Such a slush fund is corrupt, intolerable and a massive waste of taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the need for healthcare reform and everything to do with influence peddling.

This is yet more evidence of the depravity and duplicity of too many of our politicians (largely Democrats), the inherent problems of a large government and why it needs to be radically downsized, and the wasteful spending of the government. It adds another reason why Obamacare must be vaporized.

Washington Post and CBS receiving money from Obamacare slush fund
Matthew Boyle    The Daily Caller    04/06/2011

Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.

“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”

The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner.

At a Friday morning hearing, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by Rep. Cliff Stearns, Florida Republican, asked Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight (CCIO) official Steven Larsen for how the administration decides who gets a slice of the $5 billion pie – and how the application process works. In his response, Stearns referred to the fact that corporations like General Electric, Verizon and AT&T in addition to several labor unions were getting taxpayer funding.

Stearns was not impressed. “This program is providing ‘free’ money to corporations, states, unions, and pension plans,” the Congressman said in an e-mail to TheDC. “In addition, the Washington Post and CBS received funding under this program. How can the Washington Post and CBS be impartial on the issue of health care when they received funding under the health care law?”

CBS Corporation spokesman Gil Schwartz told TheDC that newsroom employees, like any other CBS employees, are indeed allowed to take the taxpayer subsidies.

“Yes they are,” Schwartz said. “Why wouldn’t newsroom employees be allowed access to that money like all other CBS employees?”
CBS gets the money from the government, then provides early retirees with health insurance.

Though no current newsroom employees can benefit from the ERRP funds, they could retire early and still benefit from the money – or any newsroom employee who has retired since Obamacare became law could benefit from it too.

The Washington Post declined to comment. “We have no additional information to provide you other than what you have,” Post spokeswoman Rima Calderon told TheDC.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told TheDC she couldn’t disclose information about applications or disbursements for specific companies.

In addition to CBS Corporation and the Washington Post Company, recipients of ERRP funding include the United Auto Workers union, which secured $206,798,086 in taxpayer money, AT&T, which took in $140,022,949, and General Electric (GE), which raked in $36,607,818. GE has made headlines recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year. IBM got $12,989,690 in taxpayer money.

Verizon pulled $91,702,538 in taxpayer cash, too, and General Motors received $19,002,669. More than $6 million went to different Teamsters groups nationwide, and millions more went to the United Mine Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/06/washington-post-and-cbs-receiving-money-from-obamacare-slush-fund/

http://dc-cdn.virtacore.com/2011/04/hctn.jpg

“Give me Liberty or Give me (Death)” is not an anachronistic chant as tens of millions of Americans have become thoroughly disgusted with our contemptuous, profligate, over-taxing, somewhat omnipotent federal government that has become too corrupted in the Progressive/Liberal design.

We need to ratchet up the decibel level of our disgust against the elitism and disdain of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi et al Progressives, neutralize and reverse their actions. Concurrently, we must relentlessly support those Conservatives and Republicans championing our causes, whether they are local, in our State Houses or in Congress.

We have an awful lot riding on this.

The Real Revolution Has Begun
J. Robert Smith  February 21, 2011

How delicious is irony, how fickle fate?

Just a little more than two years ago, liberals were ecstatic about Barack Obama's election and Democrats' control of Congress.  Liberal pundits were all atwitter about the brand new Democratic Era that voters had ushered in.  America would finally become what America should have been years ago: a European-style social democracy.

Boy, did Democrats misread their mandate!  With very little hindsight needed, it's apparent to all but ideologically-blinkered liberals that the Democrats' gross overreach isn't what voters wanted or expected.  Voters wanted a redo of the Clinton years.  Instead, in the person of Barack Obama, voters got an amalgam of FDR and LBJ with a dash of Neville Chamberlin thrown in.

But here's the real kicker.  Two years of Obama-Reid-Pelosi overreach and excesses may have been the table-setter for the real revolution now unfolding.  Voters and taxpayers first needed to see the irresponsibility and recklessness of unalloyed liberalism to appreciate that conservative government is far superior.  Thank you, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

Of course, the real revolution began last year with the 2010 midterm elections.  Yes, the GOP made the largest gains in U.S. House seats since 1948.  But the underappreciated story is that the GOP racked up huge gains in state legislative contests, and further down ballot, Republicans swept plenty of local offices.  State legislatures control congressional redistricting.  Republicans now dominate enough key statehouses to lock-in GOP congressional electoral advantages for a decade.

Had voters limited their ballots to throwing out the rascals in Congress, a fair argument could be made that 2010 was just a protest vote -- an attempt by voters to shake up the Democrats.  But when voters drill down to change party control of legislatures, city halls, and county commissions, you can bet that they're thoroughly repudiating the party in power.  The 2010 repudiation of Democrats was a clear expression of what voters did and didn't want from government.

Move now to the present time.  Republicans are on the march in Congress.  Late last week, House Republicans passed a budget bill containing $61 billion in cuts.  It's not the $100 billion that conservatives aimed for, but it's substantial and can be considered a down payment.  The House Republican proposal now goes to the Senate.  The budget process wrangling is just in its first phase.  Moving forward, the GOP will have multiple opportunities to push more cuts.

And look what else House Republicans are doing.  They're using the budget process to hamstring Obamacare by denying it funding.  Shutting down and then nixing ObamaCare would be an historic victory in the fight to end liberalism's nearly hundred-year dominance; it would be one of those critical turning points in history -- like Vicksburg and Gettysburg -- a momentum shifter that leads to other key victories, such as entitlements reform.

Also, Indiana Republican Mike Pence offered and passed an amendment cutting funding for the odious abortion mill called Planned Parenthood.  Another amendment, offered by Oregon Republican Greg Walden, that passed, chokes off funds for the Federal Communications Commission's net-neutrality gambit.  Net -neutrality would concentrate more power in the FCC's hands and stymie free speech across the internet.  Net-neutrality could well have been made in China.

Of course, the revolution just beginning isn't confined to the Halls of Congress.  Chris Christie, New Jersey's intrepid Republican governor, fired the first shots last year in the burgeoning struggle to bring sanity back to state affairs.  Christie's efforts aren't limited to balancing state budgets and reining in taxes, important as those things are.  Christie is working to limit government and expand the playing field for the private sector.  As we're seeing, government without proper limits is a ruinous beast.  California is a prime example.

Now newly elected Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is making headlines because he dares to say that his state is broke and that the public employees' gravy train needs to end.  Governor Walker wants to end collective bargaining for public employees, excepting police and firefighters, on the simple, common sense premise that employees shouldn't be negotiating the hours they work, among other things.

In Ohio, Governor John Kasich is gearing up to slash budgets, rollback taxes, cut regulations, and confront the Buckeye State's public employee unions.  There'll be fireworks aplenty in Columbus.

Thomas Jefferson is being proven right again.  The states are the laboratories of democracy.  Christie, Kasich, and Walker are seeking to demonstrate that limited, financially responsible government is best for economic and societal health.  If successful -- and we should all have high confidence that these governors will succeed -- the lessons will not be lost on voters and politicians in other states.  Revolutions are like that; it takes just a few courageous leaders to embolden others and for revolutions to spread.

A marvelous, if unintended, consequence of this burgeoning conservative revolution is what it's doing to liberalism.  The budding conservative revolution is starting to place strains on liberalism; beginning to make liberals and their allies fight defensive battles in multiple -- and multiplying -- places.  Call this a modified Cloward-Piven -- or Cloward-Piven turned on its masters.

Challenging liberal governance, and pressing limited government reforms, will help bring down liberalism across the nation.  And that should be an indisputable aim of the new conservative revolution.  Liberalism became a pox on the nation years ago.  Marginalizing liberalism would be an incomparable service to generations to come -- and to those kids being lied to now by too many Wisconsin teachers.

"Change We Can Believe In."  Mr. Obama's slogan always had a nice ring to it, but it was misapplied and a little ahead of its time.  With the conservative revolution, change we can really believe in has arrived.  How's that for rich irony?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/the_real_revolution_has_begun.html