Twelve Anti-Family Gifts from Congress

from The Heritage Foundation
Posted December 25th, 2009 at 4.00pm in Family and Religion.

As Congress wraps up its final business for the year, there are at least a dozen detrimental policies included in the omnibus spending bill recently signed into law by the President. Taken as a whole, these policies devalue human life, weaken civil society, and undermine the family. Unfortunately, these provisions have largely gone unnoticed by the general public.

The Dirty Dozen

The Fiscal Year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed by Congress includes a slew of offensive items:

1. Elimination of abstinence education. Despite polling showing the vast majority of parents want their children to be taught that abstinence is best, the omnibus defunds the abstinence-based education program. In its place Congress creates another condom-based sex education program.

2. Spreading the wealth. The omnibus bill, as well as the other appropriation measures that have passed this year, represent a fulfillment of President Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth.” His 2010 budget reflects a 30 percent increase over President Bush’s last year in office on means-tested welfare programs such as housing, food stamps, and health care. Unfortunately, these programs do little or nothing to help recipients move off of the welfare rolls and into jobs where they can achieve independence and provide for their families.

3. Needle exchange. Tucked into the health portion of the bill is an allowance of federal taxpayer funds to be used for needle exchange programs whereby drug addicts can get new needles for turning in used needles. Ostensibly to prevent the spread of infection, these programs settle for “harm reduction” rather than overcoming drug addiction. The provision does allow local health agencies and local law enforcement to “opt-out.”

4. Planned Parenthood funding. Despite the country’s towering deficit, the omnibus bill boosts Title X family planning funding by $10 million to $315.5 million. The largest recipient of Title X funds is Planned Parenthood.

5. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Despite its stated mission to “ensure that every pregnancy is wanted,” the UNFPA would receive $5 million more from U.S. taxpayers to, among other things, support China’s mandatory one-child policy, under which millions of wanted pregnancies have been ended.

6. International family planning. Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama rescinded the “Mexico City policy,” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortion overseas. The omnibus bills would give these groups an additional $103 million.

7. Limiting free speech. The omnibus bill drops a ban on federal funds being used to enforce or implement the “Fairness Doctrine.” This policy would have the effect of shutting down conservative talk radio programs.

The section of the bill that funds the District of Columbia includes these disturbing provisions:

8. Ending the D.C. Scholarship Program. For five years, thousands of D.C. families have been able to send their children to safe and effective private schools. But the omnibus bill allows no new entrants into the program–despite a 2009 Department of Education report showing a statistically significant increase in reading scores for scholarship students.

9. Public funding of abortion. The bill lifts a ban on D.C. using local funds to promote and fund abortions for District residents.

10. Taxpayer-financed domestic partner benefits. The bill lifts a longstanding ban on the use of federal taxpayer funds to pay for health care benefits for domestic partners of D.C. employees. Federal funds would also now be used for domestic partnership registration.

11. Legalized medical marijuana. The bill gives D.C. the ability to use local funds to start and implement a medical marijuana program. This comes at a time when, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles is attempting to reel in its program. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the city, with some 1,000 dispensaries cropping up since 2004.

12. Needle exchange for drug abusers. A decade-long ban is lifted in the bill to allow D.C. to use local funds to run a needle exchange program for drug addicts. Unfortunately, a provision keeping these programs from within 1,000 feet of any school, day care, or youth center was stripped out in the final bill.

Unwelcome Christmas Gifts

The Christmas season is a time when Americans celebrate life, family, and community. Unfortunately, the 12 unwelcome Christmas gifts in the omnibus bill, signed into law by President Obama last week, undermine these pillars of American civil society.

Author: Kiki Bradley

Just the facts

Listen up!

Healthcare Strategy Written in Federal Prison?

Written by Robert Creamer from his 'forced sabbatical' in Terre Haute's federal prison:

“We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
“We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
“Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health
insurance.”
“We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community.”
“We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if
they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009.”
“We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”
“Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program.”
“We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community.”
“We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of
institutions and organizations of all types.”
“To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined.”
Creamer adds:
“To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.”
Sound familiar? Click here for the whole read and here to see the video of 'progressive' grass roots in action.

The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama

'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

By Fouad Ajami - Click here for the entire piece and more examples of Obama's diplomatic failures.

Climategate: Caught Green Handed

Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate scandal

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | November 30, 2009

THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH
The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.

In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.

The unnamed hero of ‘Climategate’, after months of work gathering emails, computer code, and data, quietly sent a 61-megabyte compressed file from one of the university’s servers to an obscure public message-board on the internet, with a short covering note to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret, and that the data from the University would be available for a short time only.

He had caught the world’s politico-scientific establishment green-handed. Yet his first attempts to reveal the highly-profitable fraud and systematic corruption at the very heart of the UN’s climate panel and among the scientists most prominent in influencing it’s prejudiced and absurdly doom-laden reports had failed. He had made the mistake of sending the data-file to the mainstream news media, which had also profited for decades by fostering the “global warming” scare, and by generally denying anyone who disagreed with the official viewpoint any platform.

The whistleblower’s data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humankind is responsible.

REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE
The gallant whistleblower now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities desperate to look after their own and to divert allegations of criminality elsewhere. His crime? He had revealed what many had long suspected:

A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.

-The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
-The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
-The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
-They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
-They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
-They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
-They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
-They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
-They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
-They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
-Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.

THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES
Among the most revealing of the emails released to the world by the whistleblower was one dated November 1999. In that email, Professor “Phil” Jones of the CRU wrote to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, the authors of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that falsely abolished the medieval warm period:
Almost immediately after the news of Climategate broke, Professor Jones told Investigative Magazine’s TGIF Edition that he “had no idea” what he might have meant by the words “hide the decline”. He said:

“They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

A few hours later, the science hate-crime website created by the Team cobbled together a jumbled, snivelingly self-serving, and entirely different pretext:

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction [the ‘hockey-stick’ graph of pre-instrumental temperatures over the past 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere], and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s [another prominent member of the Team] maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem” … and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al. in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so, while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.”

Enter Steve McIntyre, the one who had first realized that the UN’s climate panel in 2001 had used a corrupt graph that had falsely abolished the medieval warm period with the aim of pretending that today’s global temperatures are unprecedented in at least 1000 years. Later that day his website, www.climateaudit.org, revealed the truth about the conspirators’ “trick”.
In order to smooth a data series over a given time period, one must pad it with artificial data beyond the endpoint of the real series. However, when Mann, Bradley, and Hughes plotted instrumental data against their reconstructions based on the varying widths of tree-rings from ancient trees, their favourite form of proxy or pre-instrumental reconstructed temperature, no smoothing method could conceal the fact that after 1960 the tree-ring data series trended downward, while the instrumental series trended upward. This was the Team’s “divergence”:

“So Mann’s solution [‘Mike’s Nature trick’] was to use the instrumental record for padding [both the proxy and the instrumental data series], which changes the smoothed series to point upwards.”

Accordingly, though the author of the original email had said that the “trick” was to add instrumental measurements for years beyond available proxy data, his conspirators at the science-hate website admitted it was actually a replacement of proxy data owing to a known but unexplained post-1960 “divergence” between the proxy data and the instrumental data. In fact, it was a fabrication.
The next day, in a statement issued by the University of East Anglia’s press office, Professor Jones fumblingly tried to recover the position:

“The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”

As we shall see, Professor Jones was not telling the truth.

BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA
The “Documents” folder in the enormous data-file released by the whistleblower contains many segments of computer program code used by Jones and the Team in contriving the Climate Research Unit’s global temperature series. The data-file also contained a 15,000-line commentary by programmers concerned that the code and the data used by the Team were suspect, were fabricated, and were not fit for their purpose.
Looking at the seldom-tidy code, the sheer number of programs which subject the raw data to various degrees of filtering, processing, and tampering is disconcerting. Some of these alterations were blatant and unacceptable, notably those which removed proxy data that correlate poorly with measured regional temperature, or even replaced proxy data altogether with measured data to conceal a discrepancy between what the proxy data actually showed and what the Team wanted it to show.

The Team’s programmers even admitted, in comments within the code, that they were artificially adjusting or “correcting” the proxy data from tree-rings. In Fortran, the high-level computer language long in use at universities for programming, a programmer’s comment is usually preceded by the statement “REM” for “remark”, indicating that the text on the line following the word “REM” should be ignored by the compiler program that translates the Fortran code that humans can understand into executable machine language that the computer can understand.
One of the commonest remarks included in the program fragments disclosed by the whistleblower is as follows:

“These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

There could scarcely be a plainer admission that the data are being regularly, routinely, materially tampered with, for the sake of making it appear that the proxy data are sufficiently reliable to appear close to the instrumental temperatures.

This is no mere debating point. The UN’s climate panel had issued specific warnings against using proxy data (MXD) from tree-rings, because warmer weather is not the only reason why tree-rings become wider in some years than in others. There are at least two other prominent reasons, both of which can – and do – distort the tree-ring data beyond the point where they are useful as indicators of (or proxies for) pre-instrumental temperatures. First, the tree-rings become wider whenever the weather becomes wetter. Secondly, and of still greater concern, the tree-rings widen when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was in 1750.

Yet, as McIntyre and McKitrick had established originally in 2003, and had published in a leading journal in 2005, the majority of the data on the basis of which Mann, Bradley and Hughes, and later other members of the Team, had attempted to pretend that there had been no medieval warm period were tree-ring series. Take out the suspect tree-ring series, together with just one other rogue series, and all the remaining data series establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Middle Ages were truly, materially, and globally warmer than the present.

Scientists with programming knowledge have already begun to examine the computer code that Professor Jones and his colleagues had attempted to hide for so long. Here is Marc Sheppard’s selection of three examples of the tortuous sequences of deliberate data tampering that are evident within the program code.

Monckton's pdf here. Original blog here.

7 stories Barack Obama doesn't want told

John Harris in Politico

Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.

No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.

A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.

But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.

Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:

He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money

Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.

Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.

The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.

Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.

Too much Leonard Nimoy

People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.”

The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions — he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name.

Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.

Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.

The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance.

That’s the Chicago Way

This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.

It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.”

The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode.

The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig, the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama team cut an early deal — to the distaste of many congressional Democrats — that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in exchange for their backing his health care plans.

The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader.

He’s a pushover

If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.

It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News — which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization — then got interview time for its White House correspondent.

In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.

He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe

That line belonged to George H.W. Bush, excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always been to be an American exceptionalist.

Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country — because of its power and/or the hand of Providence — should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world.

On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh.

His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.

On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.

President Pelosi

No figure in Barack Obama’s Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.

The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude — as some already have — that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive than Obama’s or come at his expense.

This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.

But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.

He’s in love with the man in the mirror

No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard?

It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed. He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself.

White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly fragmented media.

But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements.

That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.

This Week's Images

Orrin Hatch on Healthcare on the Senate Floor

WASHINGTON – Before tonight’s vote on the Senate $2.5 trillion health bill, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, offered an impassioned plea for senators to stand with the American people by saying no to a Washington takeover of Americans’ health care system.

“This is bigger than us, our parties or our ideologies,” Hatch remarked on the Senate floor. “This is about the very future of the greatest nation in the history of the world. It is about your children and my children. It is about your grandchildren and my grandchildren. It is about giving our future generations the same opportunities and the same sense of pride. It is about every American life and every American business that will be subject to this 2,074-page edict from Washington.”

Hatch’s complete remarks on the Senate floor follow:

Mr. President, We are rapidly approaching perhaps one of the most important votes for each of us here in the United States Senate. This is bigger than us, our parties or our ideologies.

This about the very future of the greatest nation in the history of the world. It is about your children and my children. It is about your grandchildren and my children. It is about giving our future generations the same opportunities and the same sense of pride. It is about every American life and every American business that will be subject to this 2,074-page edict from Washington.

I am going to spend my time before this historic vote to highlight some very important numbers, so every member of this chamber understands what they are voting to advance. Make no mistake, our actions today will not be without consequences. History and our future generations will judge us on this. Here are some numbers:

• 0 – the number of provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care.

• 0 – the number of government-run entitlement programs that are financially sound over the long-term.

• 10.2 percent – our national unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years.

• 70 – total number of government programs authorized by the bill.

• 1,697 – times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to determine or define provisions in this bill.

• 2,074 – total pages in this bill.

• 2010 – the year Americans start paying higher taxes to pay for this bill

• 2014 – the year when this bill actually starts most of the major provisions of this bill

• $6.8 million – cost to taxpayers per word

• $8 billion – the total amount of new taxes on Americans who do not buy Washington-defined health care.

• $465 billion – Cuts in Medicare at a time when it faces a $38 trillion unfunded liability to finance more government spending.

• $494 billion – total amount of new taxes in this bill

• $2.5 trillion – the real cost of the bill

• $12 trillion – our total national debt

These numbers are facts. They are undisputable.

Let me finish by reading an excerpt from a letter from one of my fellow Utahans from Provo, who is worried just like me about what this bill will mean for our country:

“I am writing out of deep concern over the increasing expansion of government. I moved here from Germany 20 years ago. I love America because it is free – freer than Germany in that I have the freedom to choose, among other things, how I want to insure my family (we have six children). I’m all for affordable health insurance which requires affordable health care. I am self-employed and have been hit hard by the economy.

There is a good chance that we would actually benefit from [this bill]. Business has been so bad that we would qualify for free school lunches if we asked for it. But I don’t want more government handouts.

I don’t want the government telling me what kind of insurance I need to have. I don’t want the government telling me what services I can receive when I need them. I don’t want them taking an ever greater part of my income to help finance government programs such as the ‘public option’ and the army of government employees it will take to administer such a program. I do not want more government. I want less. A lot less."

Source

Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

Why we cannot afford to sit out this fight

Andrew Napolitano | November 16, 2009

Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

Last week the House of Representatives voted on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms.

Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare," he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.

America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.

When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?

We Can't Sit Back and Allow the Loss of Our Freedoms

We elect the government. It works for us. As we watch the Democrats' plans for health care take shape, we can only ask how did our government get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?

On Saturday November 7, at 11 o’clock in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of every American at a cost of $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical decision making with your physician will be gone. More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal of federal bureaucrats.

It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives? Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave in there, powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses.

The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.

In the Constitution, the Founders built in checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states would restrain it. If the states stole liberty or property, the Congress would cure it. If the president tried to become a king, the courts would prevent it.

In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public class on Constitutional Law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com, and on Fox Nation. In anticipation of that, many of you have asked: What can we do now about the loss of freedom? For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care—where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures, and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.

One thing we can’t do is just sit back and take it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is Fox News' senior judicial analyst. This article originally appeared in two parts on FoxNews.com. Reproduced from Reason.com.

Thank You

Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
Coast Guard

We Salute You!!

To ALL our veterans both past and present, thank you for your service to this country and to the freedom of its people.

Let us also submit our prayers for those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country as well as the families they left behind.

Are you a racist?

I thought I'd resurrect his one.

Obama to Cede US Sovereignty

This is a must-see video!

Lord Monckton is a leading debunker of the whole anthropogenic global warming scam. Among his actions in this regard, he successfully sued to prevent the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth as part of the scientific curriculum of British schools, due to its clear flaws and exaggerations. A British court agreed with him, citing nine specific instances where the information presented as hard science was clearly wrong. He also has a long-standing challenge for Mr. Gore to meet him in an open debate on the topic of global warming, a challenge that has so far been ignored.

Hat tip to Jim Myers and, of course, to Lord Monckton... thank you for your efforts.

Obama's peace overtures warrant laughter, not a Nobel Prize

About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Mr. Obama's foreign policy is so self- evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.

I'm thinking they gave it to him now b/c in a few years when American ideals are all but gone and we'll be learning to speak Russian, Chinese or whatever dialect Iranians speak, it will be too late.
More from Krauthammer here

This Week's Images

A new feature. Look here every Friday... you just might get lucky.


A great cartoon that pretty much says it all!


I have one hanging in every room!!! Even the bathroom... i just put duck tape over his eyes so he can't see me pee.

Top Twenty Things Obama Doesn't Say

By Jill S. Sprik on The American Thinker

Despite countless speeches and news conferences, did you ever hear President Obama express the following ideas?

1. Not everything is a federal issue; some things are for the states to decide.

2. I hear what you're saying and you have a good point.

3. One of the beautiful things about our constitution is the liberty given to individuals to pursue their dreams. There is great opportunity in our country to succeed.

4. In an effort to stimulate job growth and despite the objections from my party, I am working with Congress to reduce taxes for small businesses.

5. I am saddened by the cycle of poverty that exists in our major cities, and here is a way we can empower the next generation to break the cycle and fulfill their God-given potential....

6. The folks at the town hall meetings and those who came to Washington on 9/12 were exercising one of the greatest rights we have as Americans, freedom of speech.

7. Stop already with all forms of ‘cult of personality' behavior. I am a public servant, just like all those who have served before and all who will come after my term is complete. It's not about me, it's about the country.

8. I heard a great message Sunday morning at church.

9. History teaches us that evil exists in the world; for this reason the United States must remain strong, ready to defend itself and its allies.

10. I didn't realize a communist was part of my administration. It won't happen again.

11. The billions siphoned out of health care into lawyers' pockets never healed a single person.

12. No other country on earth offers its citizens the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as does the United States of America.

13. The experts have looked at the proposed (fill-in-the-blank) program, and when it is extrapolated out beyond just the initial offering there is clear evidence it will cost too much money and will eventually fail.

14. I disagree 100% with the Cloward-Piven strategy of increasing the welfare rolls and overwhelming the financial system, and I am not affiliated in any way with the implementation of such an idea.

15. I don't know the answer to your question but I will give it some thought.

16. The goal of my presidency is not to implement a political ideology, but to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

17. Every person has value regardless of age, gender, color, physical characteristics, or any other factor.

18. Any healthcare bill I sign must include a provision to exclude the rationing of care, keep the door open for competition among insurers, and promote the opportunity for our young people to pursue an education in the medical fields to ensure future supply meets future demand.

19. It is important for legislators to remember that what helps someone in the short-term may actually hurt them in the long-term, and we must avoid this kind of scenario.

20. It has become clear to me after meeting with military experts that their recommendations should be implemented in our current situation; this is not an area in which politics can be allowed to interfere.

The list could continue, but you get the point: by not saying the kinds of things that show recognition of individual and state rights, by not listening to what a variety of voices can contribute to the discussion, by an unwillingness to be taught, and by a lack of humility, there is little evidence our President wants our individual, local, state, and national success. Instead, he seems intent on implementing an agenda.

It's sad, really. This is someone who has the power and authority to do great things that could open the floodgates of opportunity for our country. The right path in economic and foreign affairs could be more readily determined if his agenda was set aside.

Pity the Americans who can't find jobs, can't feed their families, whose dreams have been destroyed by an economic crisis that could be remedied if someone who truly wanted to make things better would choose to do so.

Mr. Obama has thrown a lot of people under the bus. I wonder if someone would do the same to him if he dared to deviate from his current role as Messiah of the Progressive movement and instead became the President of the United States.

I particularly liked #16... as a matter of fact, if he only said #16, a lot of the other ones would disappear.

The Nobel Hope Prize

An award for the end of American exceptionalism.

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity.

Maybe he really is The One.

Mr. Obama seemed more than a little amazed himself, after only nine months on the job and having been inaugurated only 12 days before Nobel nominations were due in February. The prize isn't "a recognition of my own accomplishment," the President said yesterday, adding that "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." Humility grace note accepted.

Yet something more than the power of charisma induced the Norwegians to honor Mr. Obama, so this is also a teachable moment. The committee's citation provides a crib sheet. The Norwegians hailed "Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," noting "a new climate" in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position."

The statement extols the American's support for the U.N. and notes that "dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts." Praise comes as well for Mr. Obama's commitment to fight climate change by capping greenhouse gas emissions. George W. Bush may have retired from American public life, but the Europeans want the Yanks to know they never want to see his likes again. Counting Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, this is the third Nobel Non-Bush Peace Prize.

On one level, all of this represents the parochial European foreign policy agenda. But somehow we doubt Mr. Obama would have received the Nobel merely for believing in climate change. The Norwegians rightly detect something larger in Mr. Obama's vision. As Thorbjørn Jagland, who chairs the Nobel Committee, told CNN: "He has done a lot already" and this award will "enhance the ideals Barack Obama is promoting."

What ideals are those? Well, the Nobel citation declares that Mr. Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Now, the world is a big place, much of it run by despots and crooks, each of whom gets the same vote in the U.N. General Assembly as America. The Europeans are applauding that at long last there is an American President willing to let himself and his country mingle as equals with this amorphous global "majority."

The Norwegians are on to something. In a mere nine months, the President has promulgated a vision for the U.S. role in the world that breaks with both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, called America the "indispensable nation" a decade ago. Ronald Reagan called it a "city on the Hill," an example to the world.

Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world's challenges, he emphasized yesterday, "can't be met by any one leader or any one nation." What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called "American exceptionalism." This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary.

From the WSJ

Obama...The Beta Male

We're all somewhat familiar with the body language dogs display when they greet each other. The dominant alpha male approaches directly, asserting his authority, while the beta male genuflects, crouches, tucks his tail, and may even end up on his back, exposing his neck in acquiescence, making sure the alpha male knows he has no intention of challenging him. With his "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" opening to the world's dictators, the President is exhibiting classic beta male behavior, in essence rolling over on his back and exposing his throat to them to make sure they know he has no intention of challenging their authority.

There's not a strong bone in the man's body. His eyes should've opened when he was shunned by Russia's leaders on a recent trip but it's a lesson we're all going to have to learn with him. It's only a matter of time before the world's bullies stop testing the waters and start really picking on us as a whole. For more from The American Thinker, click here.

Subsidized Health Care: a view from the exam room

By Linda Halderman, MD --- Published on American Thinker

I learned a lot about the cost of health care when I had a hybrid general surgery practice in California 's rural San Joaquin Valley. My practice consisted of uninsured women with breast cancer combined with a smaller percentage of cosmetic patients whose cash payments for "vanity care" subsidized the treatment of women unable to pay for needed medical treatment.

Although patients seeking cosmetic services tend to be healthy, I evaluated them like any other patient. I asked about medical history, allergies, medications and genetic disorders.

Upon questioning Sherry S., a pretty 46-year-old seeking wrinkle relief, I learned that four of her immediate family members had been diagnosed with breast or colon cancer before the age of 50. Alarmed, I asked why she had not had the recommended screening mammogram for more than four years.

She said that she knew already that her risk for developing breast cancer was likely higher than that of most women.

"But I don't have insurance," she replied.

A screening mammogram could be obtained for about $90 and was discounted or free at local facilities every October for "Breast Cancer Awareness Month."

She smiled when I proposed a deal: if she were to get a screening mammogram within sixty days of her treatment, I would offer a discount on what she paid me for cosmetic services.

"I'll think about it," she said, then shelled out over $400 for BotoxTM injections that took me ten minutes to administer.

Five months later, when she returned for her next wrinkle treatment, she reported that she still had not obtained a mammogram.

I encountered patients who gladly paid upwards of $1000 in cash for laser hair removal treatments. The paperwork filled out during their initial consultation asked them to indicate whether or not they had health insurance.

Several hair removal patients reported being covered by Medi-Cal, the government funded health coverage for California 's low-income population.

A friend of mine sells private health insurance plans. He told me of the 39-year-old father of two whose family was quoted a monthly insurance premium of $250.

"Are you kidding?" he said, refusing the coverage. "That's almost as much as my boat payment!"

When serving in the Rural Health Center in my community, my colleagues and I offered free or discounted care for a large number of patients. Many were covered by Medi-Cal or one of dozens of state programs paid for by the taxpayers of California.

The following items were commonly seen on patients or carried by their dependent children, who were also covered by subsidized programs:

--Cell phones and "BlackBerry" PDAs, including just-released models with a price tag of $400, plus an ongoing monthly service fee of $65-$150

--iPods and portable DVD players

--GameBoys and handheld electronic games

--Artificial fingernails requiring maintenance every two weeks at a cost of $40-$60 per salon visit

--Elaborate braided hair weaves, $300 per session plus frequent maintenance

--Custom-designed body art, including tattoos covering the entire torso, neck and arms, as well as body jewelry piercing every skin surface imaginable-and a few unimaginable ones. Custom tattoo work, particularly the "portrait-type" and "half sleeve" art popular in this area, runs from $100-$300 per hour and can require up to 20 hours of work, depending on the complexity of the design.

[Author's note: in three years, I performed over a dozen operations as the result of complications related to infected or abnormally healed body piercings. Breast abscesses were the most common pathology, followed by cauliflower-shaped keloid scars that interfered with function. Blood-borne diseases can be contracted during amateur and prison tattoos and piercings, and patients self-reported Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV infections. Treatment of the complications of body art among my patients was largely covered by Medi-Cal or left unpaid.]

From the office I shared with another doctor at the clinic, I had a clear view of the patient parking lot. It was not unusual for me to see clinic patients drive away in late model SUVs or cars customized in the style popular in my area. I was given an education about the after-market accessories I saw daily, including "mag" wheels, chrome trim, spinning hubcaps and fancy custom paint jobs. Gasoline prices were particularly high in central California at that time.

I overheard patients and their children chatting as I wrote in their charts. Many had an excellent command of the plotlines of cable television shows aired only on premium channels. Basic cable in my area cost over $50 per month, with premium channels extra.

I also overheard the front desk clinic staff members explain politely to angry patients that they did, in fact, have to make $5 co-pays for an office visit or meet their $20 "Share of Cost" on a $600 bill as required by Medi-Cal.

Like many of my colleagues in rural communities with few resources, I did care for patients who actually lived in poverty. For them, luxury meant keeping the utilities on and having clean clothes for a rare visit to the doctor. In California 's Central Valley , "dirt poor" is not just a phrase. But these patients, who rewarded me in ways that don't fit in the lines on any tax return, were outnumbered by others who considered health care a lower budget priority than decorated skin and expensive toys.

Individuals in this country have a right to decide how -- and how not -- to spend their money.

But that right does not include accepting entitlements without sharing responsibility. Doing so contributes to the high cost of care that burdens every unsubsidized patient.

If individuals prefer to buy luxury items rather than pay for their healthcare needs, that preference should not be rewarded while taxpayers struggle to foot their own bills.

Dr. Linda Halderman was a Breast Cancer Surgeon in rural central California until unsustainable Medicaid payment practices contributed to her practice's closure. She now serves as the healthcare policy advisor for California's Senator Sam Aanestad while continuing to provide trauma and emergency services in rural communities.

The word is spreading...

Here's the news video.

Small Government

For all of you who wish for smaller government, this site is for you.

A Few (Better) Ideas Of Their Own

From Investors Business Daily

Reform: Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., made headlines this week with two claims, both wild and neither true: Republicans' health care plan consists of urging the sick to "die quickly," and the GOP has no proposals of its own.

The first charge is so juvenile that it doesn't even deserve a response. But the second — "the Republicans' health care plan was a blank piece of paper" — requires a response.

Republicans do have alternatives to the legislative mess that Democrats are pushing, and they've been offering them for years. The left, however, has bitterly resisted these ideas — not because the policies won't work, but because they would, and Democrats apparently have no interest in improvement.

They prefer a system in decline so that their push for government health care can look to many like a practical solution. The Republican ideas that have been either hobbled or outright blocked by the Democrats include:

• Health savings accounts/medical savings accounts: Americans who hold these tax-free accounts, up to $5,950 for a family, use them to pay for basic medical services.In 1996, the Republican Congress passed a medical savings account demonstration program that, in deference to Sen. Ted Kennedy's opposition to MSAs, severely restricted the number of participants. Kennedy tried to kill the MSA provision, but settled on a compromise — a limit of 750,000 accounts.

He was willing to allow a few Americans to have the accounts because he needed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which the MSAs were a part of, to pass. In the end, Kennedy won. He got the framework of health care rules that were part of the law, and, due to the bill's heavy regulations, only about 75,000 MSAs were ever sold.

In 2003, the MSA program was replaced by health savings accounts legislation, and roughly 7 million Americans now have them. But Democrats including Rep. Pete Stark of California, who called the accounts "weapons of mass destruction," tried to destroy HSAs through excessive mandates in last year's Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act. Fortunately, that bill never became law.

In recent years, Republicans have tried to advance policies that would increase the number of Americans who have HSAs. But Democrats have sat on the proposals. They don't like HSAs because they put patients in charge of their own medical care and push government further away from the process.

• Insurance competition: Republicans have also been trying for years to change the law that lets state governments bar insurance companies from selling individual health plans across state lines. If the practice were ever allowed, consumers would have more providers and plans to choose from. The competition would, as competition always does, drive down prices as well.

In 2007, GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina offered an amendment that would have permitted Americans to shop for individual plans across state lines. But the Democratic majority in the Senate rejected it.

• Tort reform: The Pacific Research Institute estimates that the practice of defensive medicine wastes more than $200 billion a year. With trial lawyers and plaintiffs seeking fortunes through medical malpractice suits, doctors routinely overtreat patients to cover themselves in the event they are sued. They also pay higher malpractice insurance premiums because insurers often have to pay dearly in malpractice cases. These conditions increase costs.

For years Republicans have tried to bring down health care expenses though legislation that would place reasonable limits on the amount of damages a jury can award. But they have had little success at the federal level going against the party that's inextricably linked to the trial bar and its generous campaign contributions.

• Current legislation: Just this year, the GOP has proposed more than 30 health care bills in just the House. But those bills, which cover issues from costs to portability, have gone nowhere in Democratically controlled Washington. "The White House, in spite of saying they look forward to meeting with anybody who wants to solve these challenges, has rebuffed us at every turn," GOP Rep. Tom Price of Georgia told the Examiner newspapers.

In response to calls that he apologize for his inflammatory comments, Rep. Grayson sarcastically said he would "apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."

Give the first-term congressman credit. Having distracted the media with his sideshow, they don't have time to report on the Republicans' efforts to improve health care in America through consumer-driven policies.

Obama's Twitter Posts

Hat tip to fark.com

What's being taught to your kids?

This is long and hard to watch as the anti-capitalist bullshit starts flying almost immediately!

Here's Part 1 of a critique of "STUFF":
... if you want, follow to Youtube and watch all 4

This "stuff" is truly priceless!

Hat tip to Glenn Beck.

Radicals Wrote Failed Stimulus

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Monday, September 21, 2009

Policymaking: If the stimulus isn't working, perhaps it's because it was largely written by a collection of leftist interest groups called the Apollo Alliance that counts among its directors a co-founder of the Weather Underground.

The Labor Department reported Friday that 42 states lost more jobs than they gained in August, and that 14 plus Washington, D.C., reported unemployment rates of 10% or more.

Michigan's rate rose to 15.2%, highest in the nation. Nevada, represented by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is second with 13.2%. California, home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is tied for fourth with Oregon at 12.2%.

Clearly, the stimulus bill that no congressman read is not working. As it turns out, no congressman may have written it either. It's largely the creation of a coalition of leftist organizations called the Apollo Alliance, whose primary interests are saving the Earth, environmental justice and redistributing wealth. They are not friends of job-creating capitalism.

On Apollo's Web site, Sen. Reid, whose state also leads in foreclosures, is quoted praising the group of which former green czar Van Jones was a board member.

"We've talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades," Reid is quoted as saying. "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."

Jones, the former Oakland, Calif., community organizer and self-avowed communist, was on the board of the Apollo Alliance when he accepted the position in the Obama administration as green jobs czar.

As Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity told Glenn Beck, Jones has "described the Apollo Alliance mission as sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes" that would tie elements of organized labor with community organizers and environmental groups into an outfit that would restructure American society.

Wade Rathke, founder of Acorn, was also on the Apollo board, as is Gerald Hudson, vice president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which provides the shock troops in the movement to pass government-run health care.

John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton and now president of the leftist Center for American Progress, also sits on the Apollo board. Each day his group sends out talking points to the left side of the blogosphere. Mark Lloyd, diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission, was a senior fellow at CAP.

According to Kerpen, the Apollo Alliance put together a draft stimulus bill in 2008 that included almost everything in the final $787 billion package. Little did the voters know that the congressmen and senators they would elect would pass a bill written by activist outsiders.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of all this is that an even more radical Jones (no relation) has a relationship with the Apollo Alliance. Jeff Jones was a domestic terrorist in the '60s and a fugitive from justice throughout the '70s who, with Bill Ayers, helped found the Weather Underground in 1969.

Ayers, Jones and the Weathermen participated in the violent Days of Rage riots in Chicago and a nationwide anti-government bombing campaign. Like Ayers, Jeff Jones has no regrets, saying: "To this day, we still, lots of us, including me, still think it was the right thing to do."

Today, Jones finds himself director of the Apollo Alliance's New York affiliate and a consultant to the national group. One of his clients is the Workforce Development Institute, a union-controlled organization.

As a consultant to WDI, Jones helps write the grant proposals for federal stimulus dollars — funds authorized in the bill that Apollo helped write — all to ensure that taxpayer dollars end up in the hands of groups that share Apollo's political agenda.

Welcome to government of the activist, by the activist, and for the activist.

So... Now We All Know This Is About Obama's Race

From Neal Boortz

And just who didn't see all of this coming? Come on, folks! Having you been paying attention for the past 30 years? In virtually every state and community in this nation liberals have been blaming racism for any failure, miscalculation, controversy or outright act of corruption by black elected officials. There has been a standard operating methodology in place for all of the 40 years I've been doing talk radio:

1. Black citizen elected to office.
2. Black official runs into opposition to policy objectives or has a problem with corruption.
3. Black supporters and liberals blame the problems on race.

One-two-three. This scenario has been played out so many times in modern American history it would have been impossible to keep count. Now a black man has become president. Some fools thought that this would help our country move beyond racial division. Well --- perhaps it would have, if only evil white people had been smart enough not to object to anything this man might propose. But it didn't work out that way, so now the left and the media are finding racists under every bed, behind every utility pole and on every street in America. Newsweek Magazine even ran a totally absurd story about racism in babies ... putting a picture of a white infant on the cover with the title "Is your baby racist?" Read that story and you'll find that the authors think that it would be horrifying if a white child were to ever express pride in being white.

Last year, before the election, some of us predicted that if (or when) Barack Obama became president that this would happen. We said that every time his policies met with opposition the left would start screaming racism. So what happened when we said that this would happen? Well ... you guessed it. We were called racists. You just can't imagine how surprised and shocked we were.

So .. here is what Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, Hank Johnson, much of the Washington and New York press corps, Newsweek Magazine and the brilliant thinkers on the American left would have you believe of Americans right now:

* We would be more than willing to welcome cap-and-trade with open arms, even if we paid a thousand dollars or more extra every year for our energy use, if Barack Obama were only white.
* We would be dancing in the streets celebrating the dawning of government control of our health care if only Barack Obama were white.
* It would be just dandy if government bureaucrats rationed health care for our parents, as long as the president is white.
* We would jump at the chance of the government owning ALL of the auto manufacturing companies .. not just General Motors ... if the president just didn't have dark skin.
* We would applaud those ACORN workers giving tax avoidance advice to a pimp and his prostitute if the workers hadn't been black.
* Most Americans - even ones that don't pay income taxes now - would be more than willing to give 70% of everything they earn to the federal government when asked ... so long as they are asked by a white president.
* We would have been thrilled, I tell you ... THRILLED to have all of those Islamic goons being held at Guantanamo be not only released, but sent to be school resource officers at our local government schools, if only a white president put that plan in motion.
* It would be OK if a white president stood back and allowed Iran to build its coveted nukes ... we're only unhappy about that because a black president is doing it.
* Deficits? We don't care about deficits! Make our children and grand children and great grand children pay through the nose for our president's spending habits ... just so long as the president isn't black.
* Government pork? Like we actually care? Look ... you folks in Washington can spend all the money you want - how about more studies of the mating habits of Polish Zlotnika pigs? - just make sure it's not a black president who signs the spending bill into law.
* We wouldn't care if all illegal aliens were counted twice in the next Census ... just so long as the president isn't black.
* Those Black Panther thugs who threatened voters in Philly? The ONLY reason we're upset that they were given a pass is because Barack Obama is black.
* Every single member of the president's cabinet could be a tax cheat as far as we're concerned ... just so long as the president is white.
* Forced unionization? Bring it on! We love card check! We love the idea of union goons threatening and intimidating workers to sign a card saying they want to belong to a union! What we don't like is that a black president is pushing this idea.
* Single-party talks with that Gargoyle that runs North Korea? It's about time we legitimized that little pipsqueak. We're only mildly upset here because the person who is doing that happens to be black.
* More regulation of the finance sector? We could care less! For all we care you can nationalize the banks and decree that only the government can make home loans .. .and you can even apportion those home loans on the basis of race if you want to ... just so long as the president is white!
* Minimum wage? Like we care about that? Raise it to $15 an hour if you want! Just give us our white president back.

Yeah .. the moonbat left really has us figured out, don't they?

Bushy Run T.E.A. Party 9/12/09

I attended the TEA party on 9/12 and was truly touched by the solidarity of common citizens coming together to voice their concerns over the problems arising from government intrusion into their lives. Mrs. Pelosi is wrong. These are not paid protesters or "astroturf," It was indeed run by grass roots organizations. There as a genuine outpouring of emotion in memorializing the events of 9/11, and various speakers on various subjects relating to the prevailing movement in Washington towards bigger government. If I had one critique, that would be the attendance of groups more concerned with gun rights and abortion than the true message of the TEA party movement. Make no mistake here... these are good causes (I'm a member of the NRA)... but I felt those are protests for another day. I also feel that those causes will dry up once the US returns to its Constitutional roots.

Bushy Run Battlefield Park is a historical park operated by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, on 218 acres, in Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.

Enjoy

Have you noticed that when the commentator gets his question answered, he changes the subject? I loved it when Mr. Gerhart particularly zinged the ignorant talking head with the "We're not a democracy, we live in a republic." This commentator throws out all the buzzwords and this plain-speaking simple man blows Mr. Fancy Suit away. Thank you Mr. Gerhart... for spouting the only truth ever broadcast on CNN