A couple of months ago, I had written about a $1.5 billion fraudulent scheme to help solidify the unwavering support of a staunchly Democrat constituency - namely the African-Americans - called Pigford II settlement. This is an update to what amounts to be reparations under fraudulent pretenses.
Congress is rushing through its lame duck session to finally appropriate funds to pay out claims from the Pigford II settlement. The settlement is meant to clear up claims from black farmers who claim discrimination from USDA and also missed out on the first settlement.
The legislation sets aside $1.5 billion to pay these claims. The legislation also makes cuts in other federal programs to “pay for” the new spending. Among the cuts are $500 million for nutrition programs for women, infants and children.
From the Senate language:
Subtitle E–Rescission of Funds From WIC Program
SEC. 841. RESCISSION OF FUNDS FROM WIC PROGRAM.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts made available in appropriations Acts to provide grants to States under the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), $562,000,000 is rescinded.
Well.
The left likes to couch everything they do as for “the children” and the disadvantaged. Okay, so, why cut funds from child nutrition to pay a second round of claims for a lawsuit surrounded by allegations of fraud?
It is simple, really. The left is really about pay-offs to interest groups. If a child nutrition program loses funds, well, that’s the price to pay to move money around to a more favored group.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Bernanke's Delusion
According to Wednesday's news story, the Fed Chairman expects the $600 billion QE2 (a.k.a. monetization of our debt) to create upwards of 700 thousand jobs by the way of lower interest rates stimulating the economy.
I do not even know where to start with this. First of all, what does the Chairman think this installment of QE will accomplish in the way of job creation that the previous QE could not do despite its size (which was triple the size of QE2)? Second, is it possible that Bernanke does not know (or admit) what every living soul knows by now that this is not a liquidity crisis, but rather a confidence crisis borne out of uncertainty created by the current government's policies? In what recess of his dark mind does the Fed Chairman intellectualize that the dangers posed by debasing the dollar for an import based, consumer oriented economy is outweighed by potential (and imagined) benefits of his actions?
This kind of unchecked power, exercised by a few elitists like our president, congressmen, Federal Reserve, and federal judges, will be the end of this great nation if more people do not wake up to the kinds of danger they pose to the well being and liberty of all Americans.
I do not even know where to start with this. First of all, what does the Chairman think this installment of QE will accomplish in the way of job creation that the previous QE could not do despite its size (which was triple the size of QE2)? Second, is it possible that Bernanke does not know (or admit) what every living soul knows by now that this is not a liquidity crisis, but rather a confidence crisis borne out of uncertainty created by the current government's policies? In what recess of his dark mind does the Fed Chairman intellectualize that the dangers posed by debasing the dollar for an import based, consumer oriented economy is outweighed by potential (and imagined) benefits of his actions?
This kind of unchecked power, exercised by a few elitists like our president, congressmen, Federal Reserve, and federal judges, will be the end of this great nation if more people do not wake up to the kinds of danger they pose to the well being and liberty of all Americans.
Is Establishment GOP About To Double-Cross TEA Party?
The historic gains made by the Republicans in the recent elections were in most part due to the popular push towards the First Principles backed by the TEA Party movement. It now seems that some of those establishment Republicans who were up for election might have only temporarily shed their wolf's clothing for that of a sheep's. Even the establishment politicians realize, however, that there may be a price to pay if they go back to their old, status quo spending ways, thus the explanation of widespread support among them for a largely symbolic earmark ban (which does not amount to any significant impact on the nation's fiscal woes). So what else have the establishment Republicans been doing since they captured the House of representatives?
This week, the GOP caucus will finalize committee assignments. Committees are the workshops of Congress, where legislation is debated, tweaked and finalized. Legislation emerging from committees is the legislation that comes to the House floor for a vote. (The Democrats by-passed this process, but the GOP is expected to return to committees to their traditional legislative function.)
But, not all committees are created equal. The House has a group of committees called the “A” committees, through which all significant legislation must pass. These committees are so powerful, there is even a limit on how many of these committees a member may serve.
House GOP Leadership has made it clear; no freshmen need apply for these committees. They are reserving them for the existing members, thank you very much. Not one newly-elected Congressman will serve on any of these committees, according to the House GOP Leadership. The 80+ GOP members just elected will have no voice in any of the debates about spending, taxes, entitlements, bailouts or health care. The incumbent GOP Congressmen, many of whom helped create this mess, will handle it.
This year, freshman members make up about one-third of the GOP caucus. Excluding them from “A” committees is a deliberate action. It requires willful action and jostling of assignments to pull it off. You have to go out of your way to ensure that one-third of a caucus is excluded from these committees. Unfortunately, the House GOP Leadership did go out of its way.
If this GOP Leadership rule prevails, expect a great deal of disappointment next year. As much as it pains me to say this but maybe Barack Obama is partially right; maybe we are just handing the keys back to the same members who drove us into this ditch.
This week, the GOP caucus will finalize committee assignments. Committees are the workshops of Congress, where legislation is debated, tweaked and finalized. Legislation emerging from committees is the legislation that comes to the House floor for a vote. (The Democrats by-passed this process, but the GOP is expected to return to committees to their traditional legislative function.)
But, not all committees are created equal. The House has a group of committees called the “A” committees, through which all significant legislation must pass. These committees are so powerful, there is even a limit on how many of these committees a member may serve.
House GOP Leadership has made it clear; no freshmen need apply for these committees. They are reserving them for the existing members, thank you very much. Not one newly-elected Congressman will serve on any of these committees, according to the House GOP Leadership. The 80+ GOP members just elected will have no voice in any of the debates about spending, taxes, entitlements, bailouts or health care. The incumbent GOP Congressmen, many of whom helped create this mess, will handle it.
This year, freshman members make up about one-third of the GOP caucus. Excluding them from “A” committees is a deliberate action. It requires willful action and jostling of assignments to pull it off. You have to go out of your way to ensure that one-third of a caucus is excluded from these committees. Unfortunately, the House GOP Leadership did go out of its way.
If this GOP Leadership rule prevails, expect a great deal of disappointment next year. As much as it pains me to say this but maybe Barack Obama is partially right; maybe we are just handing the keys back to the same members who drove us into this ditch.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Conservative v.s. Liberal - Funny
As e-mail notification will not display video, go to my blog to watch this hilarious video. Typifies how liberals argue.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Expecting All Of Bush Tax Cuts To Be Made Permanent?
By: Kerem Oner
American Thinker
November 13, 2010
The president, on last Saturday's weekly address said "at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don't see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2% of Americans." He added that we'd be digging our graves deeper while passing the burden on to our children.
This from a man who spent all of last week rationalizing that it was not his progressive agenda (translation: massive spending, to be exact wealth redistribution, disguised as stimulus and healthcare reform) but rather lack of effective communication that caused voters to reject Democrats in a historic landslide. Such rhetoric coming from such a narcissistic, self absorbed ideologue who has racked up more debt than any U.S. president before him is height of insincerity. Not only that Obama is delusional about why his party (and ideology) suffered such a devastating defeat last week, but his unwavering Marxist ideology has him blinded to what a three year old should be able to reason out.
No, Mr. President, it is not your (the government's) money, therefore the premise that making the cuts permanent would somehow be unfair or unaffordable is nothing but a canard. You need to learn the intellectually honest, true meaning of fairness. It is not those in the top 2-5-10, or even 25% who consume more government services than they contribute to. It is on the most part your constituency -- you know, the ones your ideology (as represented by your policies) buys in return for robbing their souls of personal responsibility and self reliance.
In the U.S., federal revenues from income taxes (as well as real job creation) come disproportionately from those liberals continually vilify. The left simply views the so-called rich as their piggy bank to achieve social justice. To them, the rich have simply exploited the underclasses of the society as if we live in a caste system that does not allow upward mobility; as such they must pay to correct the injustices they have subjected the masses to. As this demented 'economy is a zero sum game' view permeates the progressive liberal mindset, do not expect this president to agree to anything more than a temporary extension of the tax cuts.
American Thinker
November 13, 2010
The president, on last Saturday's weekly address said "at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don't see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2% of Americans." He added that we'd be digging our graves deeper while passing the burden on to our children.
This from a man who spent all of last week rationalizing that it was not his progressive agenda (translation: massive spending, to be exact wealth redistribution, disguised as stimulus and healthcare reform) but rather lack of effective communication that caused voters to reject Democrats in a historic landslide. Such rhetoric coming from such a narcissistic, self absorbed ideologue who has racked up more debt than any U.S. president before him is height of insincerity. Not only that Obama is delusional about why his party (and ideology) suffered such a devastating defeat last week, but his unwavering Marxist ideology has him blinded to what a three year old should be able to reason out.
No, Mr. President, it is not your (the government's) money, therefore the premise that making the cuts permanent would somehow be unfair or unaffordable is nothing but a canard. You need to learn the intellectually honest, true meaning of fairness. It is not those in the top 2-5-10, or even 25% who consume more government services than they contribute to. It is on the most part your constituency -- you know, the ones your ideology (as represented by your policies) buys in return for robbing their souls of personal responsibility and self reliance.
In the U.S., federal revenues from income taxes (as well as real job creation) come disproportionately from those liberals continually vilify. The left simply views the so-called rich as their piggy bank to achieve social justice. To them, the rich have simply exploited the underclasses of the society as if we live in a caste system that does not allow upward mobility; as such they must pay to correct the injustices they have subjected the masses to. As this demented 'economy is a zero sum game' view permeates the progressive liberal mindset, do not expect this president to agree to anything more than a temporary extension of the tax cuts.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Bernanke's Folly
By: Kerem Oner
American Thinker
November 10, 2010
The Fed Chairman made it official that they will be implementing QE2 (Quantitative Easing) in the form of buying back $600 billion in U.S. treasuries. For those who need clarification, this translates in to monetizing our debt, which by the way Mr. Bernanke had testified to the congress that he would not do.
The intended purpose of this foolish act is to nudge interest rates lower, make credit even cheaper, and consequently (and hopefully) jolt the faltering economy back in to health by providing excess liquidity to the credit markets. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences, as Bill Gross of PIMCO - manager of world's largest mutual fund company - speculates is 20% or more devaluation of the dollar.
This decision, which even some Fed members apparently disagree with, once again demonstrates Fed Chairman Bernake's incompetence/deviousness (the latter for those who are "audit the Fed" type conspiracy buffs).
For any hypothesis (a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations - in this case the alleged effectiveness of QE) to be tested for reasonableness, principles surrounding it and facts in the form of empirical evidence must bear it out with a great degree of certainty.
First lets examine the premise itself, based on the following series of facts:
Fact: The U.S. dollar itself is the most significant, non-human asset we have as a nation. It is still the most important single global currency.
Fact: Federal debt financing is conducted in U.S. dollars, through the sale of U.S. treasuries to domestic as well as foreign investors.
Fact: The dollar is backed by the good faith and credit of the United States of America since we went off the Gold Standard.
Fact: U.S. manufacturing base has continually shrunk over the past 50 or so years, to the point where we are a service based economy. Translation: We import a heck of a lot more goods than we export.
Fact: Should the dollar devalue, it would not only make financing the debt that much more expensive but inflation would be unavoidable due to our dependence on foreign goods.
Fact: The U.S. federal government has a debt problem; nearly $13.8 trillion at the federal level to be exact. Looming over the horizon is another $111 trillion in unfunded federal entitlement liabilities, which cast further doubt on the good faith investors need to have on the ability of the U.S. government to honor its debt.
The above facts are undeniable realities that govern the consequences of any Fed action. Now, lets review empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of QE as a monetary tool to stimulate economies.
The two most prominent instances of QE being used are the 2001-2006 Japan and QE1 (November 2008) in the U.S. (The Euro Zone has also tinkered with some variants of QE)
In Japan's case, QE was primarily used to control CPI deflation. Many economist debate whether it has worked or not. I am in the camp of those who argue that it was the high oil prices of the period that ended Japan's deflationary problems.
As far as the expansion of the Japanese economy during that period, it was largely self-financed by corporations’ free cash flow and therefore not constrained by an absence of banks’ lending. In other words, there was no real connection with the QE policy of Bank of Japan.
Finally, the FRBSF Economic News Letter of October 20, 2006 concludes that the outcome of the Japanese policy remains uncertain.
QE was subsequently tried in the U.S., starting in November 2008. The Fed supplied additional liquidity to the banking system to the tune of $1 trillion plus. The expected $600 billion QE2 and any possible subsequent amounts will assure an additional $2 trillion or more liquidity to the U.S. banking system within the past two years. Unfortunately, the result has once again disappointed in that despite the additional liquidity, usage of credit has been lacking, as also witnessed by the worsening unemployment rate since the QE policy was undertaken by the Fed.
In conclusion, whether QE works or not is as unsettled as AGW (Anthropogenic global warming) is. A static analysis of available data may suggest some success but a more dynamic analysis would lead most observers to hold a healthy dose of skepticism.
As to the unintended consequence of QE 2, application of basic economic principles suffice for abandoning the policy. QE, as its planned implementation suggests, will most likely cause the U.S. dollar to decline in value vis-a-vis to other global currencies. It is a basic economic fact that printing money without creating corresponding economic activity in the form of goods and/or services debases a currency.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reason QE will not work in this instance is that we do not have a credit availability problem. Our woes are simply based on a crisis of confidence. All surveys of businesses have consistently indicated that businesses, small and large, are nervous about the regulatory environment as well as the uncertainty of possible tax hikes. Corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash instead of investing them, partially because of record low consumer confidence and partially because of the uncertainties this administration and congress have created over the past two years. Simply, no amount of liquidity will entice businesses to invest and create jobs - at least not until the business environment improves.
As the true, real world, practicing economic giants like Roubini, Gross, and Schiff (unlike academics like Krugman) say: allow the economy to restructure. Do not gamble away the reputation of the dollar in return for imagined short term benefits. Superficial meddling will only be digging our grave deeper. If these warnings are not heeded, as Mr. Roubini puts it, "the only light at the end of the tunnel so far is the one of the incoming train wreck, unfortunately..."
American Thinker
November 10, 2010
The Fed Chairman made it official that they will be implementing QE2 (Quantitative Easing) in the form of buying back $600 billion in U.S. treasuries. For those who need clarification, this translates in to monetizing our debt, which by the way Mr. Bernanke had testified to the congress that he would not do.
The intended purpose of this foolish act is to nudge interest rates lower, make credit even cheaper, and consequently (and hopefully) jolt the faltering economy back in to health by providing excess liquidity to the credit markets. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences, as Bill Gross of PIMCO - manager of world's largest mutual fund company - speculates is 20% or more devaluation of the dollar.
This decision, which even some Fed members apparently disagree with, once again demonstrates Fed Chairman Bernake's incompetence/deviousness (the latter for those who are "audit the Fed" type conspiracy buffs).
For any hypothesis (a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations - in this case the alleged effectiveness of QE) to be tested for reasonableness, principles surrounding it and facts in the form of empirical evidence must bear it out with a great degree of certainty.
First lets examine the premise itself, based on the following series of facts:
Fact: The U.S. dollar itself is the most significant, non-human asset we have as a nation. It is still the most important single global currency.
Fact: Federal debt financing is conducted in U.S. dollars, through the sale of U.S. treasuries to domestic as well as foreign investors.
Fact: The dollar is backed by the good faith and credit of the United States of America since we went off the Gold Standard.
Fact: U.S. manufacturing base has continually shrunk over the past 50 or so years, to the point where we are a service based economy. Translation: We import a heck of a lot more goods than we export.
Fact: Should the dollar devalue, it would not only make financing the debt that much more expensive but inflation would be unavoidable due to our dependence on foreign goods.
Fact: The U.S. federal government has a debt problem; nearly $13.8 trillion at the federal level to be exact. Looming over the horizon is another $111 trillion in unfunded federal entitlement liabilities, which cast further doubt on the good faith investors need to have on the ability of the U.S. government to honor its debt.
The above facts are undeniable realities that govern the consequences of any Fed action. Now, lets review empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of QE as a monetary tool to stimulate economies.
The two most prominent instances of QE being used are the 2001-2006 Japan and QE1 (November 2008) in the U.S. (The Euro Zone has also tinkered with some variants of QE)
In Japan's case, QE was primarily used to control CPI deflation. Many economist debate whether it has worked or not. I am in the camp of those who argue that it was the high oil prices of the period that ended Japan's deflationary problems.
As far as the expansion of the Japanese economy during that period, it was largely self-financed by corporations’ free cash flow and therefore not constrained by an absence of banks’ lending. In other words, there was no real connection with the QE policy of Bank of Japan.
Finally, the FRBSF Economic News Letter of October 20, 2006 concludes that the outcome of the Japanese policy remains uncertain.
QE was subsequently tried in the U.S., starting in November 2008. The Fed supplied additional liquidity to the banking system to the tune of $1 trillion plus. The expected $600 billion QE2 and any possible subsequent amounts will assure an additional $2 trillion or more liquidity to the U.S. banking system within the past two years. Unfortunately, the result has once again disappointed in that despite the additional liquidity, usage of credit has been lacking, as also witnessed by the worsening unemployment rate since the QE policy was undertaken by the Fed.
In conclusion, whether QE works or not is as unsettled as AGW (Anthropogenic global warming) is. A static analysis of available data may suggest some success but a more dynamic analysis would lead most observers to hold a healthy dose of skepticism.
As to the unintended consequence of QE 2, application of basic economic principles suffice for abandoning the policy. QE, as its planned implementation suggests, will most likely cause the U.S. dollar to decline in value vis-a-vis to other global currencies. It is a basic economic fact that printing money without creating corresponding economic activity in the form of goods and/or services debases a currency.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the reason QE will not work in this instance is that we do not have a credit availability problem. Our woes are simply based on a crisis of confidence. All surveys of businesses have consistently indicated that businesses, small and large, are nervous about the regulatory environment as well as the uncertainty of possible tax hikes. Corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash instead of investing them, partially because of record low consumer confidence and partially because of the uncertainties this administration and congress have created over the past two years. Simply, no amount of liquidity will entice businesses to invest and create jobs - at least not until the business environment improves.
As the true, real world, practicing economic giants like Roubini, Gross, and Schiff (unlike academics like Krugman) say: allow the economy to restructure. Do not gamble away the reputation of the dollar in return for imagined short term benefits. Superficial meddling will only be digging our grave deeper. If these warnings are not heeded, as Mr. Roubini puts it, "the only light at the end of the tunnel so far is the one of the incoming train wreck, unfortunately..."
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Problem Is...
From PatriotPost.US:
Blaming voters for not getting the message: "I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand. And I think that we haven't always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine closely as I go forward." --Barack Obama
Editor's Note: Obama gave 42 news conferences during his first year in office, which is twice as many as George W. Bush did in the same period. On top of that, he visited 58 cities in 30 states, held 21 town hall meetings and read 52 speeches off the teleprompter telling us the virtues of ObamaCare. The problem is not a failure to communicate -- the problem is that he did communicate.
Blaming voters for not getting the message: "I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand. And I think that we haven't always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it's something that I've got to examine closely as I go forward." --Barack Obama
Editor's Note: Obama gave 42 news conferences during his first year in office, which is twice as many as George W. Bush did in the same period. On top of that, he visited 58 cities in 30 states, held 21 town hall meetings and read 52 speeches off the teleprompter telling us the virtues of ObamaCare. The problem is not a failure to communicate -- the problem is that he did communicate.
Mystery Missile off West Coast?
After decades of downsizing and inadeqaute spending on hardware, do you think our national defenses are adequate?
As ABC News reports "Mystery Missile: Launch of Unknown Missile Caught on Tape in California".
Possibly the Chinese or the Russians fire a missile 35 miles of the coast of Los Angeles, and Pentagon has no clue who could it have been!?
I seriously doubt that it was a model rocket hobbyist. Lets hope that, whoever it was, next time their intent isn't more serious.
As ABC News reports "Mystery Missile: Launch of Unknown Missile Caught on Tape in California".
Possibly the Chinese or the Russians fire a missile 35 miles of the coast of Los Angeles, and Pentagon has no clue who could it have been!?
I seriously doubt that it was a model rocket hobbyist. Lets hope that, whoever it was, next time their intent isn't more serious.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Comrade Atkins Admits Communist Infiltration of Democratic Party
Patriot's note: Trevor, who publishes New Zeal, is in my view one of the most valuable servants to the cause of liberty. I strongly urge everyone to scour his site; the education that awaits you is invaluable (and scary). The following article is a great example of the detective work you will find on his site. Enjoy
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Zeal
November 10, 2010
This blog has long contended that the Communist Party USA and other Marxist groups have heavily infiltrated the Democratic Party.
This has enabled the Communist Party to both influence Democratic Party policy and to choose and promote Democratic candidates at all levels.
Writing on the Party website Political Affairs, comrade C.J. Atkins admits that Communists indeed do work inside the Democratic Party, including on state level policy committees.
Comrade Atkins also admits that Party members work in in Democratic-aligned organizations including Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, the Campaign for America’s Future or the New York Working Families Party.
The context here is that Atkins believes that the Party is stigmatized by the "communist" label and should drop the name, in order to more easily and effectively work through the Democrats and other "mainstream" organizations.
Forces on the progressive left must organize as currents within the orbit of the Democratic Party, but as elements separate from it. This is the stance taken by the organized labor movement. And, if the CPUSA is honest with itself, we would see that this is an approach which we have already taken for quite some time as well. Our members participate in the Democratic primary process at the local level, volunteer in GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, and many take part in the platform-drafting process in their local Democratic committees. More participate in Democratic-aligned outfits such as Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, or the Campaign for America’s Future.
However, by not formally affiliating with the Democratic Party organizationally (though many members do individually), the CPUSA and some of these other left formations are able to maintain the independence that allows them to join in the mass coalition efforts to defeat the ultra right without endorsing or accepting the corporate influence and control that prevails among too many top Democratic policy-makers.
All of this is to say, we have to consider the possibility that our current practice, which is broadly in agreement with the understanding of political independence summarized above, may not best be served by our continued adherence to a specifically party-type of organization. I would suggest that we ponder whether it may be appropriate to drop not only the “communist” half of our title, but the “party” half as well.
It is my belief that we could be more effectual operating as a socialist and working-class political organization which does not present itself as a “party” as such. By doing so, we could eliminate the ambiguities and confusion which sometimes arises when CPUSA members run as Democratic or independent candidates. Our members can freely participate in the Democratic Party process, with the Working Families Party or other independent political formations, etc. as appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with collective judgment of the situation. The details of what such an organization would look like would of course have to be discussed in greater detail by the party as a whole, but it is a transformation worth considering.
So as should be clear, this article is both a call for change as well as a suggestion for the codification of existing practice. The CPUSA has done much to renew itself and join the 21st century. It is now time to move forward with this process and remove any obstacles that still stand in the way of fully participating in the broad democratic upsurge of our times. We are living in an era of change and must do everything to make sure we stay in tune with the movement of history.
The Communist Party USA works closely with the Communist parties of Cuba, China, Russia, and with many Latin America, Africa and Asia.
It's loyalties do not lie with the United States of America, but with a re-energized and growing international communist movement.
The fact that the Communist Party USA has heavily infiltrated the Party of President Barack Obama, a man the Communists call a "friend" should be very big news.
Why isn't it?
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Zeal
November 10, 2010
This blog has long contended that the Communist Party USA and other Marxist groups have heavily infiltrated the Democratic Party.
This has enabled the Communist Party to both influence Democratic Party policy and to choose and promote Democratic candidates at all levels.
Writing on the Party website Political Affairs, comrade C.J. Atkins admits that Communists indeed do work inside the Democratic Party, including on state level policy committees.
Comrade Atkins also admits that Party members work in in Democratic-aligned organizations including Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, the Campaign for America’s Future or the New York Working Families Party.
The context here is that Atkins believes that the Party is stigmatized by the "communist" label and should drop the name, in order to more easily and effectively work through the Democrats and other "mainstream" organizations.
Forces on the progressive left must organize as currents within the orbit of the Democratic Party, but as elements separate from it. This is the stance taken by the organized labor movement. And, if the CPUSA is honest with itself, we would see that this is an approach which we have already taken for quite some time as well. Our members participate in the Democratic primary process at the local level, volunteer in GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, and many take part in the platform-drafting process in their local Democratic committees. More participate in Democratic-aligned outfits such as Organize for America, Progressive Democrats of America, or the Campaign for America’s Future.
However, by not formally affiliating with the Democratic Party organizationally (though many members do individually), the CPUSA and some of these other left formations are able to maintain the independence that allows them to join in the mass coalition efforts to defeat the ultra right without endorsing or accepting the corporate influence and control that prevails among too many top Democratic policy-makers.
All of this is to say, we have to consider the possibility that our current practice, which is broadly in agreement with the understanding of political independence summarized above, may not best be served by our continued adherence to a specifically party-type of organization. I would suggest that we ponder whether it may be appropriate to drop not only the “communist” half of our title, but the “party” half as well.
It is my belief that we could be more effectual operating as a socialist and working-class political organization which does not present itself as a “party” as such. By doing so, we could eliminate the ambiguities and confusion which sometimes arises when CPUSA members run as Democratic or independent candidates. Our members can freely participate in the Democratic Party process, with the Working Families Party or other independent political formations, etc. as appropriate to the circumstances and in accordance with collective judgment of the situation. The details of what such an organization would look like would of course have to be discussed in greater detail by the party as a whole, but it is a transformation worth considering.
So as should be clear, this article is both a call for change as well as a suggestion for the codification of existing practice. The CPUSA has done much to renew itself and join the 21st century. It is now time to move forward with this process and remove any obstacles that still stand in the way of fully participating in the broad democratic upsurge of our times. We are living in an era of change and must do everything to make sure we stay in tune with the movement of history.
The Communist Party USA works closely with the Communist parties of Cuba, China, Russia, and with many Latin America, Africa and Asia.
It's loyalties do not lie with the United States of America, but with a re-energized and growing international communist movement.
The fact that the Communist Party USA has heavily infiltrated the Party of President Barack Obama, a man the Communists call a "friend" should be very big news.
Why isn't it?
Obama Saved Capitalism?
By: Kerem Oner
November 8, 2010
Originally published in American Thinker
Leftist journalists and intellectuals insist that Barack Obama is a moderate, and even credit him as a defender of capitalism, in an effort to refute the charge he is leading America toward socialism. A recent article, "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms" by Timothy Egan in last Tuesday's N.Y.Times is a perfect example of the disconnect between the elitist left, in this case a Pulitzer Prize winning one, and reality.
I have personally encountered variants of the same argument from progressives around me. The argument usually goes something like 'Obama has done nothing that Bush himself did not do (bank and auto company bailouts), therefore you cannot call him a socialist'. Excuse me? We, TEA Party types, are not usually accustomed to defending George W. Bush as he started the ball rolling down the hill with his Medicare Part D fiasco among other concessions to the Democrats and establishment Republicans in congress. However, we must draw a line somewhere between what Bush stood for and what Obama has been shoving down Americans' throats.
It might be useful for Mr. Egan to re-visit history.
Bush was told by just about everyone around him that the $700 billion TARP was a necessity for the survival of the financial markets. Whether you supported it or not, TARP at the very least unlit the fuse of financial armageddon global markets were faced with. More importantly, the U.S. Treasury got repaid, with interest, by everyone but a couple of companies. At the end, TARP will have cost a small fraction of its original price tag to the tax payer.
As far as the bailouts of G.M. and Chrysler are concerned, after much consideration and in part as a concession to have TARP passed, Bush threw an ill conceived temporary lifeline to G.M. Nothing more. It was the Obama administration that blackmailed and skewered the bond holders of those companies in favor of the unions.
Head fakes, like pointing to the stock market performance over the past two years by likes of Mr. Egan to prove that Obama has been good for capitalism, may fool the inattentive and the liberals but unfortunately the American consumers and businesses are not buying them as witnessed by business confidence surveys, and lack of private sector job creation despite record low interest rates as well as nearly $2 trillion in cash sitting on the sidelines. The reason? Toxic (and uncertain) regulatory and tax environment created by the policies of Obama administration.
In contrast to president Bush, Obama supported and signed the economically destructive ARRA (stimulus), healthcare reform, financial reform, and equal pay legislation among other, lesser known, bills. Perhaps more revealing were some of the bills he wanted passed but did not succeed: card check that would amount to forced unionization, and Waxman-Markey (aka cap and trade) that would have cost average american family approximately $3,900 annually besides costing millions of jobs to the U.S. economy.
Even putting his radical pre-presidential history aside, Obama has proven by his rhetoric as well as actions that he is nothing short of a hard left ideologue with Marxist inspirations.
You can skin a cat in many ways, but any which way you skin this one, president Obama has been as toxic to the U.S. economy as no other president has been in recent memory.
November 8, 2010
Originally published in American Thinker
Leftist journalists and intellectuals insist that Barack Obama is a moderate, and even credit him as a defender of capitalism, in an effort to refute the charge he is leading America toward socialism. A recent article, "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms" by Timothy Egan in last Tuesday's N.Y.Times is a perfect example of the disconnect between the elitist left, in this case a Pulitzer Prize winning one, and reality.
I have personally encountered variants of the same argument from progressives around me. The argument usually goes something like 'Obama has done nothing that Bush himself did not do (bank and auto company bailouts), therefore you cannot call him a socialist'. Excuse me? We, TEA Party types, are not usually accustomed to defending George W. Bush as he started the ball rolling down the hill with his Medicare Part D fiasco among other concessions to the Democrats and establishment Republicans in congress. However, we must draw a line somewhere between what Bush stood for and what Obama has been shoving down Americans' throats.
It might be useful for Mr. Egan to re-visit history.
Bush was told by just about everyone around him that the $700 billion TARP was a necessity for the survival of the financial markets. Whether you supported it or not, TARP at the very least unlit the fuse of financial armageddon global markets were faced with. More importantly, the U.S. Treasury got repaid, with interest, by everyone but a couple of companies. At the end, TARP will have cost a small fraction of its original price tag to the tax payer.
As far as the bailouts of G.M. and Chrysler are concerned, after much consideration and in part as a concession to have TARP passed, Bush threw an ill conceived temporary lifeline to G.M. Nothing more. It was the Obama administration that blackmailed and skewered the bond holders of those companies in favor of the unions.
Head fakes, like pointing to the stock market performance over the past two years by likes of Mr. Egan to prove that Obama has been good for capitalism, may fool the inattentive and the liberals but unfortunately the American consumers and businesses are not buying them as witnessed by business confidence surveys, and lack of private sector job creation despite record low interest rates as well as nearly $2 trillion in cash sitting on the sidelines. The reason? Toxic (and uncertain) regulatory and tax environment created by the policies of Obama administration.
In contrast to president Bush, Obama supported and signed the economically destructive ARRA (stimulus), healthcare reform, financial reform, and equal pay legislation among other, lesser known, bills. Perhaps more revealing were some of the bills he wanted passed but did not succeed: card check that would amount to forced unionization, and Waxman-Markey (aka cap and trade) that would have cost average american family approximately $3,900 annually besides costing millions of jobs to the U.S. economy.
Even putting his radical pre-presidential history aside, Obama has proven by his rhetoric as well as actions that he is nothing short of a hard left ideologue with Marxist inspirations.
You can skin a cat in many ways, but any which way you skin this one, president Obama has been as toxic to the U.S. economy as no other president has been in recent memory.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Want To See Liberal Policies At Work? Look At California
If one thing was made clear as a result of last Tuesday's elections, it is that Americans in general are rejecting big, intrusive government policies at all levels. Democrats lost big not only in governorships and U.S. Senate seats, but also in state legislatures - nineteen states flipped over to the Republicans to be exact. Which state was the notable exception to succumbing to the red tide? Why, California, of course.
Californians collectively have learned nothing from their history. Yes, California bucked the national trend once more by solidifying the Democrat leadership that has turned one of the bread baskets of the U.S., the once 5th largest economy in the world, in to the basket case of United States.
Consider the following.
Californians gave Senator Boxer - a vile partisan with outright radical views from removing all limitations on late term abortions to rabid environmentalism that is literally killing her state's economy - another six years.
Californians replaced their RINO governor with, who else, former governor "It is all a lie" Jerry Brown. The same governor who, by signing the Dill Act in 1978, all but sealed California's faith. Read about California's pension fund mess here.
Just as devastatingly, Californians returned all the incumbent Democrats to their Democrat controlled Assembly and State Senate seats - even the dead ones. There were no net gains for Republicans at the state legislature.
As a former resident of California, it is saddening to see such destruction of a state blessed with abundant natural resources, fertile farmlands, and an industrious workforce that was once a role model for other states to follow. After decades of unrelenting progressive liberal rule, today, California is the poster child for a welfare state. How far has the state fallen? Consider these stark economic, fiscal, and social realities that the state is faced with:
• Unemployment rate of over 12%, translating in to nearly 2.5 million jobless Californians
• Unfunded state public pension liabilities of half a trillion dollars
• Between $10-$20 billion dollars annual illegal immigrant related costs
• Highest state sales tax and third highest income tax burden in the country
• 2010 State budget deficit of $45.5 billion out of a budget of $86 billion - the highest in the nation and state's history
• Over 15% of the population living in poverty and approximately 30% of the welfare recipients in the U.S.
• During the first decade of the new millennia, the state lost 640,000 factory jobs which translates in to loss of 34% of the state's industrial base. Every passing month adds to new businesses fleeing the state.
• Tax Foundation's 2011 "State Business Tax Climate Index" ranks California 49th in the nation
• Ronald Pollina's ranking for job creation: 50th.
• ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) 2010 study on state economic outlook ranks the state 46th.
• ALEC economic performance ranking for 1998-2008 is 38th.
• Death of agriculture in the central valley, thanks in great part to progressives in the state legislature
• Highest concentration of nations 20 million or so illegal immigrants
• Net population loss due to migration ranking of 8th.
• ALEC public education performance rank: 30th.
In almost all the above categories, California has been on a continuous decline due to unchecked environmentalism and otherwise progressivism run amuck. The environmentalist groups like Sierra Club, moochers of generous welfare recipients, and state unions effectively have full representation in the state legislature while the hard working citizens and businesses are locked out.
With one of the worst business regulatory environments in the country, just about highest taxes (both individual and corporate), fleeing businesses, declining population, and crumbling societal institutions like its failing schools, rest of the U.S. needs only to look at California to understand what a correct choice they made in last Tuesday's elections. We hope that the good people of the state will join most of the rest of Americans in waking up and kicking the bums out, before it is too late.
Californians collectively have learned nothing from their history. Yes, California bucked the national trend once more by solidifying the Democrat leadership that has turned one of the bread baskets of the U.S., the once 5th largest economy in the world, in to the basket case of United States.
Consider the following.
Californians gave Senator Boxer - a vile partisan with outright radical views from removing all limitations on late term abortions to rabid environmentalism that is literally killing her state's economy - another six years.
Californians replaced their RINO governor with, who else, former governor "It is all a lie" Jerry Brown. The same governor who, by signing the Dill Act in 1978, all but sealed California's faith. Read about California's pension fund mess here.
Just as devastatingly, Californians returned all the incumbent Democrats to their Democrat controlled Assembly and State Senate seats - even the dead ones. There were no net gains for Republicans at the state legislature.
As a former resident of California, it is saddening to see such destruction of a state blessed with abundant natural resources, fertile farmlands, and an industrious workforce that was once a role model for other states to follow. After decades of unrelenting progressive liberal rule, today, California is the poster child for a welfare state. How far has the state fallen? Consider these stark economic, fiscal, and social realities that the state is faced with:
• Unemployment rate of over 12%, translating in to nearly 2.5 million jobless Californians
• Unfunded state public pension liabilities of half a trillion dollars
• Between $10-$20 billion dollars annual illegal immigrant related costs
• Highest state sales tax and third highest income tax burden in the country
• 2010 State budget deficit of $45.5 billion out of a budget of $86 billion - the highest in the nation and state's history
• Over 15% of the population living in poverty and approximately 30% of the welfare recipients in the U.S.
• During the first decade of the new millennia, the state lost 640,000 factory jobs which translates in to loss of 34% of the state's industrial base. Every passing month adds to new businesses fleeing the state.
• Tax Foundation's 2011 "State Business Tax Climate Index" ranks California 49th in the nation
• Ronald Pollina's ranking for job creation: 50th.
• ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) 2010 study on state economic outlook ranks the state 46th.
• ALEC economic performance ranking for 1998-2008 is 38th.
• Death of agriculture in the central valley, thanks in great part to progressives in the state legislature
• Highest concentration of nations 20 million or so illegal immigrants
• Net population loss due to migration ranking of 8th.
• ALEC public education performance rank: 30th.
In almost all the above categories, California has been on a continuous decline due to unchecked environmentalism and otherwise progressivism run amuck. The environmentalist groups like Sierra Club, moochers of generous welfare recipients, and state unions effectively have full representation in the state legislature while the hard working citizens and businesses are locked out.
With one of the worst business regulatory environments in the country, just about highest taxes (both individual and corporate), fleeing businesses, declining population, and crumbling societal institutions like its failing schools, rest of the U.S. needs only to look at California to understand what a correct choice they made in last Tuesday's elections. We hope that the good people of the state will join most of the rest of Americans in waking up and kicking the bums out, before it is too late.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Left Still Does Not Get It
The tsunami that swept the Democrats Tuesday night may not have been a vote of confidence for the Republicans, but it was at the very least repudiation of progressive policies that have been ravaging America. The conservative point of view won because Americans still believe in the superiority of our system and in American exceptionalism.
Some on the left clearly disagree. Next morning, I had the displeasure of reading an article by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast. Beinart, an elitist left wing raving lunatic of the same magnitude as Paul Krugman, is a political writer for The Daily Beast, an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation - a fringe left organization dedicated to social democratization of America.
Beinart, like other dedicated socialists in politics, media, and academia, has apparently been busy rationalizing the defeat Democrats suffered Tuesday night. In his article, he opines that Republican victory will end up helping Obama get re-elected in 2012 as he will be seen as a check on Republican radicalism (he adds "as Bill Clinton did in 1996", which shows his mind boggling ignorance as Clinton moderated greatly after his party's 1994 defeat - remember "the era of big government is over"?)
He goes on to lament that the big loser of the night was Keynesianism. Here is a guy who thinks that the world's best economists (likes of Paul Krugman no doubt - a legend in his own mind to say the least) are screaming that abandoning Keynesian policies is exactly the wrong thing at this moment. I mean, how irrational can a progressive liberal get? Maybe Mr. Beinart (who is not an economist or, quiet obviously, has any understanding of economics), could point to a single instance of Keynesian policies succeeding in the modern era? Did it succeed during the 1930's America, or in post WWII Europe, or in Japan for the past two decades? The answer is no in each case, unless of course your definition of success involves people getting further and further mired in centralized, stagnant economies that are flirting with bankruptcy.
The article goes on to claim that FDR made significant cuts to the federal budget in 1937, "which according to many economists prolonged the depression for several years". This statement alone qualifies Mr. Beinart as an intellectual midget. Is he not aware that the Great Depression had started more than a half decade before? Including Hoover's misdirected efforts to right the economic ship by a series of anti-trade, tax, and spending measures, U.S. implemented varying degrees of Keynesian policies for almost a decade before 1937. Shouldn't the question then be "if Keynesian policies did not work then, why would they work any other time"? Unfortunately, such reasoning lies beyond the intellectual limits of the liberal elite.
Mr. Beinart concludes his article with the usual progressive parting shot of questioning American exceptionalism by comparing upward mobility in India and China to that of American citizens. The merits of such an argument are non-existent since such comparisons cannot be made between the richest country in the world and some of the poorest.
Progressive liberals may not believe in American exceptionalism any more than Indian or Chinese exceptionalism because they do not believe in the promise that America holds for anyone who is within its borders regardless of their background. Believing in American exceptionalism would require them to abandon their collectivist ambitions.
Mr. Beinart (or Mr. Obama for that matter), American exceptionalism is borne out of the single greatest constitution in the world - the only one that truly empowers individuals over governmental entities. Our innovativeness, entrepreneurship, productivity, and wealth all attest to it. Do not confuse the concept of exceptionalism with superiority complex or arrogance, which you and all other progressive liberal elites suffer from.
Some on the left clearly disagree. Next morning, I had the displeasure of reading an article by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast. Beinart, an elitist left wing raving lunatic of the same magnitude as Paul Krugman, is a political writer for The Daily Beast, an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation - a fringe left organization dedicated to social democratization of America.
Beinart, like other dedicated socialists in politics, media, and academia, has apparently been busy rationalizing the defeat Democrats suffered Tuesday night. In his article, he opines that Republican victory will end up helping Obama get re-elected in 2012 as he will be seen as a check on Republican radicalism (he adds "as Bill Clinton did in 1996", which shows his mind boggling ignorance as Clinton moderated greatly after his party's 1994 defeat - remember "the era of big government is over"?)
He goes on to lament that the big loser of the night was Keynesianism. Here is a guy who thinks that the world's best economists (likes of Paul Krugman no doubt - a legend in his own mind to say the least) are screaming that abandoning Keynesian policies is exactly the wrong thing at this moment. I mean, how irrational can a progressive liberal get? Maybe Mr. Beinart (who is not an economist or, quiet obviously, has any understanding of economics), could point to a single instance of Keynesian policies succeeding in the modern era? Did it succeed during the 1930's America, or in post WWII Europe, or in Japan for the past two decades? The answer is no in each case, unless of course your definition of success involves people getting further and further mired in centralized, stagnant economies that are flirting with bankruptcy.
The article goes on to claim that FDR made significant cuts to the federal budget in 1937, "which according to many economists prolonged the depression for several years". This statement alone qualifies Mr. Beinart as an intellectual midget. Is he not aware that the Great Depression had started more than a half decade before? Including Hoover's misdirected efforts to right the economic ship by a series of anti-trade, tax, and spending measures, U.S. implemented varying degrees of Keynesian policies for almost a decade before 1937. Shouldn't the question then be "if Keynesian policies did not work then, why would they work any other time"? Unfortunately, such reasoning lies beyond the intellectual limits of the liberal elite.
Mr. Beinart concludes his article with the usual progressive parting shot of questioning American exceptionalism by comparing upward mobility in India and China to that of American citizens. The merits of such an argument are non-existent since such comparisons cannot be made between the richest country in the world and some of the poorest.
Progressive liberals may not believe in American exceptionalism any more than Indian or Chinese exceptionalism because they do not believe in the promise that America holds for anyone who is within its borders regardless of their background. Believing in American exceptionalism would require them to abandon their collectivist ambitions.
Mr. Beinart (or Mr. Obama for that matter), American exceptionalism is borne out of the single greatest constitution in the world - the only one that truly empowers individuals over governmental entities. Our innovativeness, entrepreneurship, productivity, and wealth all attest to it. Do not confuse the concept of exceptionalism with superiority complex or arrogance, which you and all other progressive liberal elites suffer from.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
It Is Not Just The Economy, Stupid
It amuses me greatly to see progressive punditry try to rationalize the repudiation of progressive policies by the citizenry by repeating the old political cliche "it is the economy, stupid".
To them, I have a new cliche: "it is the Constitution, stupid".
Progressive policies inescapably center around massive, stifling federal government that is commonly referred among classic liberals as the "nanny state", yet what sets America apart from everyone else in the world is our almost genetically driven adherence to a Constitutional government as set forth in our founding documents.
At every given juncture in history, Americans have rejected the role of central government in planning and controlling every aspect of their daily lives. This in turn has allowed us to excell like no one else has. This is what is meant by "American exceptionalism", which Obama and most Democrats simply, and admittedly, do not understand or believe in.
Yes, occasional progressive eras have and will always derail America temporarily, but what sets us apart from everyone else is our can do attitude. Deep down, Americans believe in personal responsibility; and despite intentional corruption of our culture, on the most part still behold traditional values that will reject progressive liberalism every time. Today is just the latest one of those historic triumphs of the common sense of American people over the philosophy that governs everyone else. May god bless America, now and for ever.
To them, I have a new cliche: "it is the Constitution, stupid".
Progressive policies inescapably center around massive, stifling federal government that is commonly referred among classic liberals as the "nanny state", yet what sets America apart from everyone else in the world is our almost genetically driven adherence to a Constitutional government as set forth in our founding documents.
At every given juncture in history, Americans have rejected the role of central government in planning and controlling every aspect of their daily lives. This in turn has allowed us to excell like no one else has. This is what is meant by "American exceptionalism", which Obama and most Democrats simply, and admittedly, do not understand or believe in.
Yes, occasional progressive eras have and will always derail America temporarily, but what sets us apart from everyone else is our can do attitude. Deep down, Americans believe in personal responsibility; and despite intentional corruption of our culture, on the most part still behold traditional values that will reject progressive liberalism every time. Today is just the latest one of those historic triumphs of the common sense of American people over the philosophy that governs everyone else. May god bless America, now and for ever.
(At Least) 50 Reasons to Vote Democrat
As a public service for those who may still be undecided, here are at least 50 reasons to vote for your donkey candidate:
1) If you want the American government to be feared by the American people -- but laughed at by Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- vote Democrat.
2) If you want to agree with John Kerry that American voters are stupid and distracted and uninformed -- vote Democrat.
3) If you moved your 7-million-dollar yacht to Rhode Island to avoid taxes -- vote Democrat.
4) If you want a "dude" president -- and not the shining city on a hill -- vote Democrat.
5) If you want to pay through the nose in taxes until you are 70 so union thugs in purple shirts can retire in security at age 50 -- vote Democrat.
6) If you like the fact that people who actually know the Constitution get laughed at by people who are ignorant of it -- vote Democrat.
7) If you want the entire country to be like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Chicago -- vote Democrat.
8) If you fear the Chamber of Commerce more than you do the Ground Zero Mosque -- vote Democrat.
9) If you think liberalism and socialism have done a good job of managing the incredibly beautiful and rich state of California (or any one of western European countries), vote Democrat.
10) If you want a government bureaucrat, who can no doubt access your voter registration records, to determine whether or not you get a hip replacement or a cancer treatment -- vote Democrat.
11) If you want to pay six dollars a gallon for gas -- vote Democrat.
12) If you want electricity bills to "necessarily skyrocket" -- vote Democrat.
13) If you think America deserved what it got on 9-11 -- and that we can handle another such attack -- vote Democrat.
14) If you think that Club Gitmo, which was not even operational on 9-11, is why "they hate us" -- vote Democrat.
15) If you think our economy will boom with government bureaucrats making twice what similar folks make in the private sector -- vote Democrat.
16) If you think there's nothing wrong with Jerry Brown admitting that the last time he ran for governor of California, he "had no plan" -- vote Democrat.
17) If you think anything has changed about Jerry Brown and his plans -- vote Democrat.
18) If you liked Richard Blumenthal's answer in the Connecticut debate on "how to create a job" -- vote Democrat.
19) Actually, if you can even decipher Blumenthal's answer about creating a job -- vote Democrat.
20) If you think Michelle Obama actually added value to the health care system with her no-show three-hundred-thousand-dollar job in Chicago -- vote Democrat.
21) If you think John Edwards is sexy -- regardless of your gender -- vote Democrat.
22) If you think civil rights means that all white Americans are by definition guilty and all African-Americans are by definition innocent, vote Democrat.
23) If you are stupid enough to think that being against a Federal Department of Education is the same as being against education -- vote Democrat.
24) If you want to vote the same way the dead are voting -- vote Democrat.
25) If you want to vote the same way the felons are voting -- vote Democrat.
26) If you like the fact that our military men and women are being disenfranchised -- vote Democrat.
27) If you think Cuba is a success story -- vote Democrat.
28) If you think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crashing the housing market is an example of "unfettered capitalism" and a failure of the free market, then vote Democrat.
29) If you think that smart businesspeople will sit around and let our government tax them out of existence before they move their operations overseas -- vote Democrat.
30) If you think it helps you if your boss gets hit with a huge tax bill -- vote Democrat.
31) If Chris Matthews gives you a tingle up your leg -- instead of an upset stomach - then vote Democrat.
32) If you think insurance companies can lower rates, pay for every small medical item -- and every preexisting condition -- and every illegal alien -- and stay in business -- vote Democrat.
33) If you agree with the French union protesters upset about having to delay retirement for two years to age 62 -- vote Democrat.
34) If you think a rally sponsored by Arianna Huffington, the SEIU, and the DNC is a non-political rally -- vote Democrat.
35) If you think electric cars are the answer because they don't use energy -- vote Democrat.
36) If you don't want Nancy Pelosi to retire -- vote Democrat.
37) If you think that dissidents in countries like Iran and Tibet do not deserve our backing, while wannabe dictators in Panama and elsewhere do, vote Democrat.
38) If you think that the modern interpretation of the Constitution does not go far enough in providing "redistributive justice", vote Democrat.
39) If you think that the Republican Party and all Americans, who believe that the government needs to be scaled back if we are to survive, is the "enemy" and they need to shut up and "sit at the back of the car", vote Democrat.
40) If you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we need to implement economy killing measures to stop global warming, er.. climate change, er.. whatever it is being called this week, vote Democrat.
41) If you believe that "Heather has two mommies", "Flocabulary", and "Story of stuff" are more valuable to teach to public school students than U.S. Constitution and history, vote Democrat.
42) If you believe that top 10% of tax payers paying nearly 70% of the total tax burden is still not enough, vote Democrat.
43) If you believe that none of Obama appointees (or Obama himself) are socialists (or worse), vote Democrat.
44) If you think that corrupt-to-the-core Chicago political machine is the model that should serve for the rest of the nation, vote Democrat.
45) If you think that lawyers, who write the laws and lobby almost exclusively Democrats to enrich themselves by the implementation of those laws, are just swell, vote Democrat.
46) If you think that the only problem with the stimulus was that it was not big enough, vote Democrat.
47) If you believe that tax payer money should go exclusively to Democrats as campaign contributions from government unions such as AFSCME, vote Democrat.
48) If you believe that Soros and his organizations like the Tides Foundation, who leave no stone unturned in trying to convert the U.S. in to a socialist haven while installing a one world government, vote Democrat.
49) If you believe your friendly progressive before you believe your lying ears and eyes, vote Democrat.
50) If you believe that personal responsibility and hard work is for the birds, vote Democrat.
I hope this has helped any undecided voters.
1) If you want the American government to be feared by the American people -- but laughed at by Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- vote Democrat.
2) If you want to agree with John Kerry that American voters are stupid and distracted and uninformed -- vote Democrat.
3) If you moved your 7-million-dollar yacht to Rhode Island to avoid taxes -- vote Democrat.
4) If you want a "dude" president -- and not the shining city on a hill -- vote Democrat.
5) If you want to pay through the nose in taxes until you are 70 so union thugs in purple shirts can retire in security at age 50 -- vote Democrat.
6) If you like the fact that people who actually know the Constitution get laughed at by people who are ignorant of it -- vote Democrat.
7) If you want the entire country to be like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Chicago -- vote Democrat.
8) If you fear the Chamber of Commerce more than you do the Ground Zero Mosque -- vote Democrat.
9) If you think liberalism and socialism have done a good job of managing the incredibly beautiful and rich state of California (or any one of western European countries), vote Democrat.
10) If you want a government bureaucrat, who can no doubt access your voter registration records, to determine whether or not you get a hip replacement or a cancer treatment -- vote Democrat.
11) If you want to pay six dollars a gallon for gas -- vote Democrat.
12) If you want electricity bills to "necessarily skyrocket" -- vote Democrat.
13) If you think America deserved what it got on 9-11 -- and that we can handle another such attack -- vote Democrat.
14) If you think that Club Gitmo, which was not even operational on 9-11, is why "they hate us" -- vote Democrat.
15) If you think our economy will boom with government bureaucrats making twice what similar folks make in the private sector -- vote Democrat.
16) If you think there's nothing wrong with Jerry Brown admitting that the last time he ran for governor of California, he "had no plan" -- vote Democrat.
17) If you think anything has changed about Jerry Brown and his plans -- vote Democrat.
18) If you liked Richard Blumenthal's answer in the Connecticut debate on "how to create a job" -- vote Democrat.
19) Actually, if you can even decipher Blumenthal's answer about creating a job -- vote Democrat.
20) If you think Michelle Obama actually added value to the health care system with her no-show three-hundred-thousand-dollar job in Chicago -- vote Democrat.
21) If you think John Edwards is sexy -- regardless of your gender -- vote Democrat.
22) If you think civil rights means that all white Americans are by definition guilty and all African-Americans are by definition innocent, vote Democrat.
23) If you are stupid enough to think that being against a Federal Department of Education is the same as being against education -- vote Democrat.
24) If you want to vote the same way the dead are voting -- vote Democrat.
25) If you want to vote the same way the felons are voting -- vote Democrat.
26) If you like the fact that our military men and women are being disenfranchised -- vote Democrat.
27) If you think Cuba is a success story -- vote Democrat.
28) If you think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crashing the housing market is an example of "unfettered capitalism" and a failure of the free market, then vote Democrat.
29) If you think that smart businesspeople will sit around and let our government tax them out of existence before they move their operations overseas -- vote Democrat.
30) If you think it helps you if your boss gets hit with a huge tax bill -- vote Democrat.
31) If Chris Matthews gives you a tingle up your leg -- instead of an upset stomach - then vote Democrat.
32) If you think insurance companies can lower rates, pay for every small medical item -- and every preexisting condition -- and every illegal alien -- and stay in business -- vote Democrat.
33) If you agree with the French union protesters upset about having to delay retirement for two years to age 62 -- vote Democrat.
34) If you think a rally sponsored by Arianna Huffington, the SEIU, and the DNC is a non-political rally -- vote Democrat.
35) If you think electric cars are the answer because they don't use energy -- vote Democrat.
36) If you don't want Nancy Pelosi to retire -- vote Democrat.
37) If you think that dissidents in countries like Iran and Tibet do not deserve our backing, while wannabe dictators in Panama and elsewhere do, vote Democrat.
38) If you think that the modern interpretation of the Constitution does not go far enough in providing "redistributive justice", vote Democrat.
39) If you think that the Republican Party and all Americans, who believe that the government needs to be scaled back if we are to survive, is the "enemy" and they need to shut up and "sit at the back of the car", vote Democrat.
40) If you believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we need to implement economy killing measures to stop global warming, er.. climate change, er.. whatever it is being called this week, vote Democrat.
41) If you believe that "Heather has two mommies", "Flocabulary", and "Story of stuff" are more valuable to teach to public school students than U.S. Constitution and history, vote Democrat.
42) If you believe that top 10% of tax payers paying nearly 70% of the total tax burden is still not enough, vote Democrat.
43) If you believe that none of Obama appointees (or Obama himself) are socialists (or worse), vote Democrat.
44) If you think that corrupt-to-the-core Chicago political machine is the model that should serve for the rest of the nation, vote Democrat.
45) If you think that lawyers, who write the laws and lobby almost exclusively Democrats to enrich themselves by the implementation of those laws, are just swell, vote Democrat.
46) If you think that the only problem with the stimulus was that it was not big enough, vote Democrat.
47) If you believe that tax payer money should go exclusively to Democrats as campaign contributions from government unions such as AFSCME, vote Democrat.
48) If you believe that Soros and his organizations like the Tides Foundation, who leave no stone unturned in trying to convert the U.S. in to a socialist haven while installing a one world government, vote Democrat.
49) If you believe your friendly progressive before you believe your lying ears and eyes, vote Democrat.
50) If you believe that personal responsibility and hard work is for the birds, vote Democrat.
I hope this has helped any undecided voters.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Let The Voting (And The Cheating) Begin
The long awaited day is only hours away. All indications point toward the American electorate on the most part being finally awakened to the horrifying reality of who Democrats really are.
All polls point toward a bloodbath like of which has not been seen in at least six decades, if not a century. This is, as Mark Levin puts it, the most critical election in our life times as far as survival of our constitutional republic goes.
The left fully realizes the undeniable reality of pending doom, even in reliably blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin. This is exactly why the amount of fraud in this election will also be unsurpassed in our life times. Fraud, afterall, can be the deciding factor in getting Democrats elected in close elections as it did with Senator Franken in Minnesota in 2008.
I documented some of the many instances of fraud that has already been perpetrated in this election cycle by the party of the dead and the undocumented. ACORN and the SEIU have been busy. So have local Democrat political machines everywhere from Maine to Hawaii.
In the latest news, Daytona Beach City Commissioner Derrick Henry and his campaign manager Genesis Robinson face dozens of felony charges involving alleged absentee ballot fraud from Henry's re-election campaign two months ago.
Authorities say they illegally obtained 92 absentee ballots to boost Henry's re-election chances. Some voters said they never requested absentee ballots that were in their names, which is a common complaint we have been hearing from across the country, and it echoes a new potentially explosive case.
In Pennsylvania, in the Eighth Congressional District of Bucks County, authorities tell us more than 500 absentee ballot applications are allegedly fraudulent.
Voters in sworn statements say someone made up excuses for why they needed absentee ballots, and they claim they never signed for them. Some, they say, include fabricated excuses for why they supposedly needed absentee ballots, such as citing "travel," when the voter had no plans to go anywhere.
Voter Patricia Phipps said someone came to her home, and "asked me to sign my name to prove that he was there. He told me that if he collected enough signatures, he would get to meet President Obama... I was never told that I was signing an absentee ballot request."
Voters also say they received letters soliciting absentee ballot applications from the "Pennsylvania Voters Assistance Office," threatening that they may not be able to vote if they did not cooperate and sign an absentee ballot application. The only problem? There is no such office. The letter said it was actually "paid for by PA Victory 2010, a project of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee."
Democratic sources tell Fox News there was "nothing sinister or malicious" about all this and that the letter was targeting Democratic voters.
In a statement, the State Democratic Party says "absentee applications have been rejected for routine reasons, the system is working, there's no evidence of any irregularity or problem."
But Republicans want all the absentee ballots impounded to prevent possible fraud, and a hearing is scheduled for Friday.
They accuse the Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy's campaign of being involved, accusing campaign workers of having voters include false or inaccurate information, which is illegal, on absentee ballot applications.
Murphy is in a close race with Republican challenger Mike Fitzpatrick. Requests for a response from the Murphy campaign were not returned.
Meanwhile, Democrats plan to accuse Republicans of encouraging absentee ballot fraud as well. The Democratic State Committee claims while the party "is working to make sure as many voters are able to participate in next week's election as possible, Republicans are spending their time trying to disenfranchise voters." I find it hillarious that the best Democrats can do is alway
The Bucks County absentee ballot case appears similar to the ongoing case in Troy, New York that have been extensively covered.
A special prosecutor has taken DNA samples from nine Troy public officials and political operatives, including five Democratic members of the City Council, in an absentee ballot scandal stemming from the 2009 Working Families Party primary there. The DNA will be compared to samples recovered from dozens of absentee ballots and ballot applications that were allegedly fraudulent. As in Bucks County, voters in Troy said they never filled out the applications.
In Troy, though, the excuses appear to be more creative than in Bucks County. Two ballot applications cite as the reason the voter supposedly couldn't go to the polls: "bus to casino."
Meanwhile, in Nevada next month, ACORN goes on trial for voter registration fraud charges. The troubled community activist group faces criminal charges stemming from its voter programs in the 2008 election.
The official who has brought that case, the Democratic Nevada Secretary of State, Ross Miller, is now on the trail of more allegations of possible voter fraud in his state in this election.
All polls point toward a bloodbath like of which has not been seen in at least six decades, if not a century. This is, as Mark Levin puts it, the most critical election in our life times as far as survival of our constitutional republic goes.
The left fully realizes the undeniable reality of pending doom, even in reliably blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin. This is exactly why the amount of fraud in this election will also be unsurpassed in our life times. Fraud, afterall, can be the deciding factor in getting Democrats elected in close elections as it did with Senator Franken in Minnesota in 2008.
I documented some of the many instances of fraud that has already been perpetrated in this election cycle by the party of the dead and the undocumented. ACORN and the SEIU have been busy. So have local Democrat political machines everywhere from Maine to Hawaii.
In the latest news, Daytona Beach City Commissioner Derrick Henry and his campaign manager Genesis Robinson face dozens of felony charges involving alleged absentee ballot fraud from Henry's re-election campaign two months ago.
Authorities say they illegally obtained 92 absentee ballots to boost Henry's re-election chances. Some voters said they never requested absentee ballots that were in their names, which is a common complaint we have been hearing from across the country, and it echoes a new potentially explosive case.
In Pennsylvania, in the Eighth Congressional District of Bucks County, authorities tell us more than 500 absentee ballot applications are allegedly fraudulent.
Voters in sworn statements say someone made up excuses for why they needed absentee ballots, and they claim they never signed for them. Some, they say, include fabricated excuses for why they supposedly needed absentee ballots, such as citing "travel," when the voter had no plans to go anywhere.
Voter Patricia Phipps said someone came to her home, and "asked me to sign my name to prove that he was there. He told me that if he collected enough signatures, he would get to meet President Obama... I was never told that I was signing an absentee ballot request."
Voters also say they received letters soliciting absentee ballot applications from the "Pennsylvania Voters Assistance Office," threatening that they may not be able to vote if they did not cooperate and sign an absentee ballot application. The only problem? There is no such office. The letter said it was actually "paid for by PA Victory 2010, a project of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee."
Democratic sources tell Fox News there was "nothing sinister or malicious" about all this and that the letter was targeting Democratic voters.
In a statement, the State Democratic Party says "absentee applications have been rejected for routine reasons, the system is working, there's no evidence of any irregularity or problem."
But Republicans want all the absentee ballots impounded to prevent possible fraud, and a hearing is scheduled for Friday.
They accuse the Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy's campaign of being involved, accusing campaign workers of having voters include false or inaccurate information, which is illegal, on absentee ballot applications.
Murphy is in a close race with Republican challenger Mike Fitzpatrick. Requests for a response from the Murphy campaign were not returned.
Meanwhile, Democrats plan to accuse Republicans of encouraging absentee ballot fraud as well. The Democratic State Committee claims while the party "is working to make sure as many voters are able to participate in next week's election as possible, Republicans are spending their time trying to disenfranchise voters." I find it hillarious that the best Democrats can do is alway
The Bucks County absentee ballot case appears similar to the ongoing case in Troy, New York that have been extensively covered.
A special prosecutor has taken DNA samples from nine Troy public officials and political operatives, including five Democratic members of the City Council, in an absentee ballot scandal stemming from the 2009 Working Families Party primary there. The DNA will be compared to samples recovered from dozens of absentee ballots and ballot applications that were allegedly fraudulent. As in Bucks County, voters in Troy said they never filled out the applications.
In Troy, though, the excuses appear to be more creative than in Bucks County. Two ballot applications cite as the reason the voter supposedly couldn't go to the polls: "bus to casino."
Meanwhile, in Nevada next month, ACORN goes on trial for voter registration fraud charges. The troubled community activist group faces criminal charges stemming from its voter programs in the 2008 election.
The official who has brought that case, the Democratic Nevada Secretary of State, Ross Miller, is now on the trail of more allegations of possible voter fraud in his state in this election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)