ACORN Caught In Act Again - MANDATED Health Care Coverage Is UN-AMERICAN - Don't Be Conned By Co-ops That Are Gov Healthcare By Another Name! – Constitution Trashing Obamacare Is The Biggest Power Grab By Central Gov In American History – Beware Of Bad Vaccines - OBAMACARE: Ending The Elderly - Keeping Up With Obama Lies As Big Tax Coming On Middle Class



ACORN Caught in Act... Again

Fourth video shows staffer in California helping 'pimp' and 'prostitute' obtain housing for sex business | VIDEO

The Story So Good ... It's Ignored? | FOX FORUM
ABC's Gibson: ACORN Scandal a Mystery to Me
Pressure for ACORN Probe | ACORN: A Brief History

White House Lobbies for Kennedy Seat - So much for state's rights!



Baucus' Health Care Bill Has GOP Balking


Baucus' approach includes a requirement for individuals to buy insurance, with financial penalties for those who don't.


"It looks like we're being pushed aside by the Democratic leadership so the Senate can move forward on a bill that, up to this point, does not meet the shared goals for affordable, accessible health coverage that we set forth when this process began," Grassley said in a statement.
He cited Republican concerns over cost, taxpayer funding for abortion services, medical malpractice lawsuits and subsidies for illegal immigrants in any health care bill.

Health Plan Squeezes Those in Middle


Mandated Health Insurance Squeezes Those in the Middle

All of the major health bills winding through Congress feature a so-called individual mandate, requiring Americans carry health insurance, much like drivers are required to have car insurance.

BOSTON -- President Barack Obama and his congressional allies have made insuring nearly all Americans a major goal of overhauling the nation's health-care system. One of their toughest challenges will be trying to cover people like Ron Norton of Worcester, Mass.

Norton, 49 years old, is an adjunct professor at a local community college who earns about $40,000 a year. He's also one of roughly 200,000 Massachusetts residents who remain uninsured despite a state law requiring residents to have health insurance.

"I can't use up all of my savings just to buy mandatory insurance," Norton says. It's like penalizing "the homeless for refusing to buy a mansion."

As lawmakers hammer out legislation aiming to extend coverage to the country's 46 million uninsured, one of the most sweeping proposals has so far stoked relatively little debate: a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, much like drivers are required to have car insurance.

All of the major health bills winding through Congress feature a so-called individual mandate similar to the one in Massachusetts. Obama supported the idea in his speech to Congress last week. Such a mandate, proponents argue, is necessary to keep premiums affordable: The healthy, who are relatively cheap to cover, help pay for the sick.

Subsidies for premiums would help low-income families gain coverage, while the prospect of fines would prod others to buy insurance.

But people like Norton show how difficult it could be to bring into the insurance pool the millions of consumers who make too much money to qualify for assistance, yet not enough to bear the full cost of new policies on their own.




From: on behalf of Dr. Frank (


Wed 9/16/09 3:55 AM



The following is from Michael Connelly of Carrollton, Texas, a retired attorney and constitutional law instructor, who states he has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the impact upon our Constitution.  It's a broader picture than just health care reform. If this sort of thing happens, the damage will be irreversible.


    Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.  I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of  the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system.  All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals.  Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
    However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.
Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been  contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed. 
    The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

    This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.  You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
    If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you.  It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without "due process of law."
    So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
    I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
    For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:

   There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

    Michael Connelly 
    Carrollton, Texas





[DrFrank c] Two thousand schoolgirls suffer suspected ill-effects from cervical cancer vaccine

From: on behalf of Dr. Frank (


Wed 9/16/09 3:39 AM



Regarding the following:

What chance does a young girl have?   The vaccine will either cause serious complications, or it will make her the town slut.  The only reason the vaccine is recommended is because the parents and/or the health department don't trust little girls even before adolescence  They just might have sex.  The vaccine does NOT prevent cervical cancer. 

The vaccine is designed to prevent infection with certain types of the HPV (human papillomavirus) which they claim causes about 70% of cervical cancer cases.  And the way a girl can catch the HPV  is through sex.  So, once the girl knows that her parents had her vaccinated to prevent diseases gotten from being sexually active, (AND  SHE WILL KNOW,) she will, in most cases say to herself  -- "my parents think I will go out and have sex, so I just might as well, after all, I will not catch anything because I have been vaccinated."

WRONG, there are  many other STDs and the vaccine is useless against them, including other types of the HPV,  Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Chlamydia , genital Herpes and a host of others.  Then there is a pregnancy. 

Besides, cervical cancer is not that common and with periodic check-ups, (after a certain age) it can be prevented and/or cured.   The biggest danger is becoming the "Town Slut."

Note:  The figure of 2,000 is just in the United Kingdom.

Frank Joseph M.D.


Two thousand schoolgirls suffer suspected ill-effects from cervical cancer vaccine


Thousands of schoolgirls have suffered suspected adverse reactions to a controversial cervical cancer vaccine introduced by the Government.

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 9:00PM BST 12 Sep 2009

Doctors' reports show that girls of 12 and 13 have experienced convulsions, fever and paralysis after being given the vaccine, which is now administered in schools as part of efforts to prevent women developing cancer.

Others suffered nausea, muscle weakness, dizziness and blurred vision, according to a special report drawn up by drug safety watchdogs.

A support group says it has received dozens of calls from parents who believe their daughters have been damaged by the vaccine.

The parents of one teenage girl given the jab last autumn believe it was to blame for repeated seizures which have left her with brain damage and psychosis.

The immunisation programme for teenage girls is controversial because it protects them from the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus which causes 70 per cent of cervical tumours.

When the Government introduced the Cervarix vaccination programme last year, some campaigners dubbed it a "promiscuity jab".

Campaigners and families said the new figures showed the vaccination should not have been introduced via a mass programme.

More than one million girls have already been given the jab, which is offered to all as they enter their teens.

Until 2011 it will also be administered to older girls, so that all female teens below the age of 18 will be covered by the programme.

Ministers say that ultimately the scheme will save 700 lives a year, while drug safety experts insist the number of suspected reactions are outweighed by the benefits from the jab.

Most of the more than 2,000 suspected reactions recorded by drug safety watchdog Medicines and Health care products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were mild, with dozens of girls recording rashes, pain in the arm, and allergies.

But the report prepared by the MHRA earlier this month also discloses cases in which teens have suffered convulsions, eye rolling, muscle spasms, seizures and hyperventilation soon after being given the jab.

The analysis by the MHRA, drawn up this month, found 2,107 patients had reported some kind of suspected adverse reaction to Cervarix. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total.

Jackie Fletcher, founder of Jabs, a support group for families whose children have fallen ill after immunisation, said she had taken dozens of calls from parents who believed their daughters had been damaged by the cervical cancer vaccine.

She said: "We have spoken to parents whose daughters have had seizures, paralysis, blurred vision, severe headaches and the loss of feeling in parts of their body.

"Doctors will try to convince parents that these problems are in their child's mind, or have nothing to do with the vaccines, but we don't think there is sufficient evidence to show Cervarix is safe."

Medical safety experts insist the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.
They say many of the patients who experienced an "adverse" reaction to the jab since April 2008, including some who took part in drug trials or bought the drug privately, only suffered short-term side effects from the injection process, not as a result of the drug.

There was no evidence to suggest "isolated cases of other medical conditions" were actually caused by the vaccine, and not just a coincidence, the regulator's report said.

Cancer charities urged parents to continue allowing their daughters to have the jabs, saying the numbers were well within what would have been expected for a large-scale programme, and that most of the side effects were minor.

Robert Music, director of cervical cancer charity Jo's Trust said: "I can understand why parents would feel cautious, but this programme could reduce 70 per cent of cervical cancers.

We need to keep reviewing the evidence, but we would really urge parents to make sure their daughters have the vaccination."

Stacey Jones is one of those who believes she has suffered side effects from the vaccine. She was 17 when she had her first Cervarix injection.

Her parents Julie and Kerry, from Bilston, West Midlands, noticed her becoming increasingly emotional in the weeks following the first two jabs, but feared their "happy-go-lucky" girl had finally succumbed to adolescent moodswings.

Within four days of the third injection in March of this year, Stacey suffered an epileptic seizure, followed by 17 more in the following week.

She has now been diagnosed with a brain injury, caused by inflammation of the brain, and is being treated in an NHS rehabilitation unit in Birmingham, which helps her with basic tasks like making a sandwich.

Seizures are minimised by five types of medication, but her memory is badly damaged.

The family has been given no explanation for how the damage occurred. Mrs Jones, 44, said: "She was such a lovely, happy go-lucky girl, now she is just a shell.

"When we go to see her, she can't remember what she has just eaten for tea. The impact on her and all of us has been absolutely devastating. I feel she has been used as a guinea pig."

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Cervarix, said the drug had to undergo rigorous testing, with over 70,000 doses used in trials before a licence was granted.

He said: "The UK medicines safety agency has reviewed all reported adverse events relevant to Cervarix and there is no evidence to suggest that the vaccine carries any long-term side effects.

"The symptoms this girl has experienced are clearly upsetting and it is understandable that the girl and her parents want to uncover the cause."


Don't Let Them Vaccinate Your Children
Bill Sardi on the 18 reasons against the flu vaccine.


Eighteen Reasons Why You Should NOT Vaccinate Your Children Against The Flu This Season

by Bill Sardi



v:shapes="_x0000_i1027"> This year it is more important that you protect your children and loved ones from the flu vaccines than influenza itself. Here are the reasons:


1. This flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly. In fact, the H1N1 swine flu in circulation is less deadly than many other influenza outbreaks. The first 1000 confirmed swine flu cases in Japan and China produced zero deaths. The Centers for Disease Control alleges 36,000 Americans succumb to the flu each year, but so far, since March through August of 2009 (6 months), the swine flu has been attributed to ~500–600 deaths in the US. The swine flu of 2009 has already swept through the Southern Hemisphere’s flu season without alarm. Only exaggerated reports have been issued by the World Health Organization regarding hospitalizations required during the flu season in South American countries. Getting exposed to influenza and developing natural antibodies confers resistance for future flu outbreaks. Artificially boosting antibodies by exposure to flu viruses in vaccines is more problematic than natural exposure. Americans have been exposed to the H1N1 swine flu throughout the summer of 2009 with far fewer deaths and hospitalizations than commonly attributed to the seasonal flu.

2. Health authorities tacitly admit prior flu vaccination programs were of worthless value. This is the first time both season and pandemic flu vaccines will be administered. Both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines will require two inoculations. This is because single inoculations have failed to produce sufficient antibodies. Very young children and older frail adults, the high-risk groups in the population, may not produce sufficient antibodies in response to the flu vaccine. This is an admission that prior flu vaccines were virtually useless. The same people who brought you the ineffective vaccines in past years are bringing you this year’s new vaccines. Can you trust them this time?

3. In addition to failure to produce sufficient antibodies, this swine flu vaccine is brought to you by the same people who haven’t been able to adequately produce a seasonal flu vaccine that matches the flu strain in circulation. In recent years flu vaccination has been totally worthless because the strains of the flu in circulation did not match the strain of the virus in the vaccines. Authorities claim the prevalent flu strain in circulation in mid-September ’09 is the H1N1 swine flu, which appears to be milder than past seasonal influenza in circulation. If this data is correct, why receive the season flu shot this year?

4. The vaccines will be produced by no less than four different manufacturers, possibly with different additives (called adjuvants) and manufacturing methods. The two flu inoculations may be derived from a multi-dose vial and in a crisis, and in short supply, it will be diluted to provide more doses and then adjuvants must be added to trigger a stronger immune response. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Would you permit your children to be injected with lead? Lead is very harmful to the brain. Then why would you sign a consent form for your kids to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead? Injecting mercury may fry the brains of American kids.

5. This is the first year mock vaccines have been used to gain FDA approval. Mock vaccines are made to gain approval of the manufacturing method and then the prevalent virus strain in circulation is added just days before it is actually placed into use. Don’t subject your children to experimental vaccines. Yes, these vaccines have been tested on healthy kids and adults, but they are not the same vaccines your children will be given. Those children with asthma, allergies, type I diabetes, etc. are at greater risk for side effects. Children below the age of 2 years do not have a sufficient blood–brain barrier developed and are subject to chronic brain infections that emanate into symptoms that are called autism. Toddlers should not be subjected to injected viruses.

6. Over-vaccination is a common practice now in America. American children are subjected to 29 vaccines by the age of two. This means a little bit of disease is being injected into young children continually during their most formative years! Veterinarians have backed off of repeat vaccination in dogs because of observed side effects.

7. Health officials want to vaccinate women during pregnancy, subjecting the fetal brain to an intentional biological assault. A recent study showed exposure flu viruses among women during pregnancy provoke a similar gene expression pattern in the fetus as that seen in autistic children. This is a tacit admission that vaccines, which inject a little bit of influenza into humans, causes autism.

8. Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated. Beware the falsehoods of modern medicine.

9. School kids are likely to receive nasally-administered vaccines (Flu-Mist) that require no needle injection. But this form of live vaccine produces viral shedding which will surely be transmitted to family members. What a way to start an epidemic!

10. This triple reassortment virus appears to be man made. The H1N1 swine flu virus of 2009 coincidentally appeared in Mexico on the same week that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France visited Mexican president Felipe Calderon, to announce that France intends to build a multi-million dollar vaccine plant in Mexico. An article written by Ron Maloney of the Seguin, Texas Gazette-Enterprise newspaper announces a "rehearsal for a pandemic disaster" scheduled for May 2, 2009. The article says: "Guadalupe County emergency management and their counterparts around the country are preparing for just such a scenario…" This means county health authorities across the U.S. had been preparing a rehearsal for mass vaccinations prior to the announced outbreak in Mexico. Virologists admit this part swine flu/part avian flu/part human flu virus must have taken time to develop. But it somehow wasn’t detected by hundreds of flu monitoring stations across the globe. On April 24, 2009 Dr. John Carlo, Dallas County Medical Director, alludes that the H1N1 strain of the Swine flu as possibly being engineered in a laboratory. He says: "This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified." (Globe & Mail, Canada)

11. Recall the swine flu scare of 1976. In a politically charged atmosphere where Gerald Ford was seeking election to the Presidency, the swine flu suddenly appeared at a military base. Vaccine was produced and millions of Americans were vaccinated. But the vaccine was worse than the disease, causing hundreds of cases of Guillain Barre syndrome and a few deaths. In a replay of the past, the White House is directly involved in promoting the H1N1 2009 swine flu vaccine. The federal government will use federal funds to pay off schools to administer vaccines, promote vaccination via highway billboards and TV advertisements, and conduct military-style mass inoculations in such rapid fashion that if side effects occur, it will be too late. The masses will have been vaccinated already. Over $9 billion has been allotted by the federal government to develop and deliver an unproven and experimental flu vaccine. Don’t be a guinea pig for the government.

12. Researchers are warning that over-use of the flu vaccine and anti-flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can apply genetic pressure on flu viruses and then they are more likely to mutate into a more deadly strain. US health authorities want 70% of the public to be vaccinated against the flu this ’09 season, which is more than double the vaccination percentage of any prior flu season. This would certainly apply greater genetic pressure for the flu to mutate into a more virulent strain.

13. Most seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the United States and other countries are now resistant to Tamiflu (oseltamivir). Tamiflu has become a nearly worthless drug against seasonal flu. According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, among 1148 seasonal flu samples tested, 1143 (99.6%) were resistant to Tamiflu!

14. As the flu season progresses the federal government may coerce or mandate Americans to undergo vaccination. France has already ordered enough vaccine to inoculate their entire population and has announced that vaccination will be mandatory. The US appears to be waiting to announce mandatory vaccination at a later date when it can scare the public into consenting to the vaccine. The federal government is reported to be hiring people to visit homes of unvaccinated children. This sounds like the Biblical account of Pharaoh attempting to eradicate all the young Israelite baby boys. Must we hide our babies now?

15. Public health authorities have cried wolf every flu season to get the public to line up for flu shots. Health authorities repeatedly publish the bogus 36,000 annual flu-related deaths figure to scare the public into getting flu shots. But that figure is based on the combined deaths from pneumonia in the elderly and the flu. Maybe just 5000–6000 or so flu-related deaths occur annually, mostly among individuals with compromised immune systems, the hospitalized, individuals with autoimmune disease or other health problems. As stated above, the swine flu in full force has only resulted in ~500–600 deaths in the first six months in circulation and it is far more dreaded by public health authorities than the seasonal flu. The Centers for Disease Control issues a purchase order for flu vaccines and then serves as the public relations agency to get the public to pay for the vaccines. Out of a population of 325 million Americans, only 100 million doses of flu vaccine have been administered each year and no epidemic has erupted among the unvaccinated.

16. The news media is irresponsible in stirring up unfounded fear over this coming flu season. Just exactly how ethical is it for newspapers to publish reports that a person has died of the swine flu when supposedly thousands die of the flu annually? In the past the news media hasn’t chosen to publicize each and every flu-related death, but this time it has chosen to frighten the public. Why? Examine the chart below. The chart shows that the late flu season of 2009 peaked in week 23 (early June) and has dissipated considerably.

While every childhood flu-related death should be considered tragic, and the number of flu-related pediatric deaths in 2009 is greater than prior flu seasons as a percentage, in real numbers it is not a significant increase. See chart below:

According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, for week 34 ending August 29, 2009, there were 236 hospitalizations and 37 deaths related to the flu. That would represent just 5 hospitalizations and less than one death per State, which is "below the epidemic threshold."

17. Public health officials are irresponsible in their omission of any ways to strengthen immunity against the flu. No options outside of problematic vaccines and anti-flu drugs are offered, despite the fact there is strong evidence that vitamins C and D activate the immune system and the trace mineral selenium prevents the worst form of the disease where the lungs fill up with fluid and literally drown a flu-infected person. The only plausible explanation as to why the flu season typically peaks in winter months is a deficiency of sunlight-produced vitamin D. Protect your family. Arm your immune system with vitamins and trace minerals.

18. Will we ever learn if the flu vaccine this year is deadly in itself? In 1993 the federal government hid a deadly flu vaccine that killed thousands of nursing home patients. It was the first year that flu shots were paid for by Medicare. The vaccine-related mortality was so large that this set back the life expectancy of Americans for the first time since the 1918 Spanish flu! Mortality reports take a year or two to tabulate and the federal government may choose not to reveal the true mortality rate and whether it was related to the flu or the vaccines. You say this couldn’t happen? It did in 1993!




[DrFrank c] They Called Us Astroturf, Nazis, Terrorists...Now It Is Racists!!‏

From: on behalf of Dr. Frank (


Wed 9/16/09 3:23 AM



They Called Us Astroturf, Nazis, Terrorists...Now It Is Racists!!
By Rene Guerra                  

September 15, 2009

The entire Left is so panicked, not at the groundswell but at the huge tsunami of awareness and awakening regarding the true nature of Obama, now sweeping the nation, from sea to shining sea.

Thus, they are resorting to any trick to, in their desperation, demonize the Great American Tsunami; they have now come at unison, like on cue, accusing us, We the People, of racism.

Skin-color-sensitive individuals are the racists here, and in America, racists are vastly in the Left, which uses ethnic warfare --along with class warfare-- as one of its nauseating ways of politicking.

Except for those in the Left, who are ideologues or racists first, We the People are all Americans first and foremost. And if a continually increasing majority of We the People opposes Obama, it is specifically and only for his policies, aimed at enlarging the government; grabbing private enterprises; enlarging the deficit and the national debt to levels never ever thought; encroaching the government more in our health care, a move that most likely is the beginning of health care nationalization; his abusive berating of America, worse, when abroad; his surrounding himself with leftist radicals; and on and on.

How are we, the majority of Americans, tolerate a man, Obama, that was HIRED JUST to administer the executive branch of OUR, the people's, federal government according to the stipulations in the Constitution and secondary law, and to, under the same stipulations, take charge as Commander in Chief of OUR, the people's, Armed Forces...and no more... BUT who now comes out trying to turn OUR country upside down?

It doesn't matter if the color of the skin of the fellow temporarily occupying OUR, the people's, White House is magenta, pink, black, blue, red, white, yellow, green, violet, cyan, amber or whatever hue; his job description is clearly established in the Constitution...and nowhere in the Constitution says that, We the People, have given such fellow, Obama in this case, the authority to flip the country over. Obama is most abusively arrogating powers to himself that We the People never gave him.
And how can We the People feel comfortable with a man, Obama, in the Oval Office that purveys racism and talks lingo of an authentic Marxist cut, such as, when referring to small-town folks he was taped saying: "...they cling to ... religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..." Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people." Racists have skin color in their mind all the time.

To support the plausible suspicion that he is at least a Marxist, just remember that he wrote in one of his books: "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors." Moreover, in a Freudian slip when talking to Joe the Plumber, he expressed his intention to "...spread the wealth around..." paraphrasing Marx's encapsulation of the essence of socialism: "From everyone [forcedly, of course], according to his abilities [and assets, of course]; to everyone, according to his needs [as the government sees fit]."

We see in Obama an individual on a mission of destroying the America that our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us. He said it publicly in the days preceding election-day, last November: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."  In another occasion Obama proclaimed: "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it" socialism, We the People aptly sustain.

What can explain his exploding to cosmic dimensions the deficit and the national debt with his "stimulus" package and budget but as being part of his bid to destroy America? Every Marxist Leninist on Earth has it etched in his brain that free-entrepreneurial America must be brought to her knees. Lenin orders it to his followers in the form of a "prophecy" in his boring booklet "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism".

To pay for all that cosmic squandering, Obama will inexorably have to overtax us --ALL of us, poor, middleclass or rich, directly or indirectly-- and he is already borrowing like a college freshman with a new credit card, which will cause more over-taxation on us, ALL. That universal over-taxation will cause economic stagnation.

But, to make it worse, he is also printing money by the boxcar, which is making the value of the dollar fall that will, sooner or later, end up making it look like Monopoly money, a catastrophic fall that unavoidably cause hyperinflation.
The dreadful combination of stagnation and hyperinflation causes stagflation, that is, economic depression.

Realize that the first to be destroyed in any economic depression is the middle class. Realize also that, as a "coincidence", there is the fact that Lenin saw the middle class as the buffer between the affluent and the poor that had to be destroyed to thus create a stage of confrontation, and to manipulate the differences, between rich and poor.

So, to destroy the middle class Lenin ordered his contemporaneous and future followers: "The way to crush the bourgeoisie [the middleclass] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." Remember that, during the teenage formative part of his life, Obama was taken under the wing of Frank Marshall Davis, a Marxist-Leninist, card-carrying member of the Communist Party, which at the time was just a full franchise of, and funded mainly by, the Kremlin.
Thus, how come We the People should not oppose Obama?

How can We the People have confidence on a man, Obama, who, with his Marxist-Leninist background, says: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."  We logically suspect that he wants to create a repressive entity along the line of Lenin's Cheka.

How can We the People rely on a man, Obama, who asked his followers to spy on those who dissented from his health care reform plan and report them to That being a practice of an authentic Stalinist cut.

How are We the People going to believe that Obama doesn't have ulterior intentions about his health care plan when he has repeatedly advocated publicly government fully controlled health care, which he disguises with the codeword "single-payer"? Therefore, We the People are positive that his "public-option" is the foot inside the door to "single-payer".

How come We the People should not oppose Obama, the ACORN "community organizer" --a codeword that in hardcore-Left parlance means Marxist-Leninist ghetto agitator-- that has not abjured yet his public vow to grant ACORN a plush seat at the table, in the White House, " set the agenda..." when ACORN has been publicly exposed to be, among other malignant things, a contraption of voter registration fraud artists, law gamers, tax cheat advisers and under age girl brothel-organizers?

Obama has lied so many times that he --in addition to his Marxist, if not Leninist, ideology-- cannot be believed. He promised to transcend race, partisan bickering, and obsessive secrecy. He promised skin-color blindness, bipartisan concord, and pristine transparency. Obama however is a consummate race baiter, a rabid partisan, and an individual that has vaulted almost everything in his past life, except for the little he made the "mistake" of disclosing in his books. Where is the birth certificate!!!!!!

There is no way Obama, or anyone with his "portfolio" can be trusted, let alone supported, by any decent American.

No, it is not about any skin color, as the entire Left, with its main fronts, the Democrat Party and the "mainstream" media are desperately trying to portray it; it is Barack Hussein Obama II, an individual dragging a trunk full of rabid racism, hatred of America, sheer mendacity, utter duplicity, most diabolic ideologies, and malevolent intentions for America.

ALL REPORT: Obamacare and Ending the Elderly


 Michael Hichborn (


Tue 9/15/09 11:26 PM



OBAMACARE: Ending the Elderly

American Life League exposes the euthanasia agenda of the sponsors of HR 3200. Henry Waxman and co-sponsors John Dingell, George Miller, Peter Stark, and Frank Pallone all voted against a federal ban on use of drugs for physician assisted suicide. Not only that, Barack Obama is on record equating physician assisted suicide with "end of life issues" and "the elderly."  See for yourself!

Click here to start the ALL Report!

For more headline news, click here for ALL’s Daily News Summary.



Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
It is also a raw abuse of power, says Judge Andrew Napolitano.


Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

Why hasn't the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate

insurance sales?




Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the
House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate
the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal
government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you]
show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"
Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal
government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and
10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution.
One of those powers—the power "to regulate" interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which
Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.
Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a
green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private
behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for
the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the
Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his
farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might
have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.
James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such
circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle
reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent
ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that
commerce between the states was kept "regular."
The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns
within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the
Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial
at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns
from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school
safety has historically been a state function.
Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is
unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to
the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and
does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity,
as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of
medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.
The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined "to
keep regular" the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the
type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred
from selling policies to people in another state.
That's right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of
insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes
interstate commerce.
What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The
president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us
will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever
they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.



Saying No to the O-ministration
More and more states are considering the grand Jeffersonian option of nullification.


Keeping up with Obama lies
Phyllis Schlafly throws water on president's health-care-reform claims

Keeping up with Obama lies

Posted: September 16, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

The sanctimonious shock at South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's calling out,
"You lie," when Barack Obama said the health-care bill will not insure illegal
aliens reminds me of the Casablanca police chief saying he was "shocked,
shocked" to learn that gambling was taking place in the cafe.
Barack Obama's congressional pals had defeated the Republican amendment
to require proof of legal residency in order to be covered by the health-care
bill, and the American people know that illegals are now getting free health care
at emergency rooms.
The surprise was that nobody cried, "You lie," when Obama said, "Under our
plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." Anyone who follows
this issue knows that all Democratic-sponsored bills cover abortion funding,
and that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the health-care bill because
it only prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions financed through
Obama promised Planned Parenthood that: "In my mind, reproductive care is
essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of
the plan that I propose."
Obama also stated: "We're going to set up a public plan that all persons and
all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will
provide all essential services, including reproductive services." Nobody
disputes the fact that "reproductive services" include elective abortions.
Obviously, the feminists in Obama's audience knew he was lying when he
said that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. If they hadn't
believed Obama was lying, the feminists from Nancy Pelosi to Barbara Boxer
to Barbara Mikulski would have erupted in audible protest.
No way will the feminists allow Obama's health-care "reform" to exclude
payment for abortions-on-demand. The feminists have already demonstrated
their considerable clout in the Obama administration, and abortion funding
is central to their long-term and short-term goals.
Rush Limbaugh pointed out the media's hypocrisy about the use of the word
lie: There was no outcry when the other Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband)
accused President George W. Bush of lying in his State of the Union Address
to a joint session of Congress. Liberal etiquette decrees that it's OK to call
Bush a liar, but not Obama, with whom the media, as Bernard Goldberg
detailed in his most recent book, have "a slobbering love affair."
Obama told another lie when he claimed that the Democrats' health-care plan
does not set up "panels of bureaucrats" with the authority to withhold
life-sustaining treatment from elderly patients. He compounded his lie by
accusing anybody who talks about such death panels of "a lie, plain and
simple" (which everybody recognized as a not-so-subtle reference to
Sarah Palin).
Another lie in Obama's speech was saying that the plan does not jeopardize
Medicare benefits that seniors currently receive. He plans to cut $500 billion
out of Medicare "waste and inefficiency," which can't be done without
reducing benefits.
Other lies in Obama's speech included his claim that the health-care plan will
not add to the deficit, that anyone who is satisfied with his current health
plan can keep it and that his plan will not require raising taxes on people
earning less than $250,000 a year.
The fundamental lie in all the Democrats' plans is the pretense that they can
insure an additional 50 million people without increasing costs and/or
without reducing benefits for the other 250 million people who are basically
satisfied with their current health care. People are protesting at tea parties
and town meetings because they realize this is not possible no matter how
many passionate speeches Obama gives.
The tea party march down on Pennsylvania Avenue on Sept. 12 was not only
impressive in its size (estimates range from 1 million to 2 million Americans)
but also because of the messages on the handmade signs they carried. They
proved the marchers were authentic grass roots, not astroturf.
Here are some samples of the homemade signs that show the rising activism
of We the People: "The change I hoped for was freedom." "Recycle Congress."
 "1 czar down, 43 to go." "Don't Tread on Me." "You are not entitled to what
I have earned." "I love my country, but I'm scared of my government."
"Investigate ACORN." "Your fair share is NOT in my wallet." "Obamacare
makes me sick." "I'm not your ATM." "Nurses Against Obamacare." "Abortion
is not health care." "Undocumented worker" (under picture of Obama).
"Congress pack your bags; you're going home in 2010." "If you're not
outraged, you're not paying taxes." "Read the bill." "Bolsheviks promised
change, too." Quotes from John Adams. And a sign carried by a 2-year-old
child: "I owe $38,000."
Some signs were carried by immigrants: "Latinos are conservative, too."
"I had enough socialism in the USSR."

Dem's Obama docs: The plot thickens
J.B. Willams offers more peculiarities about election forms filed with states
--Canada Free Press

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—II



 By JB Williams  Tuesday, September 15, 2009
For a few years now, I have been stating that there is no political savior, no silver bullet and no
 government agency that was going to save the United States of America from the heavy hand of federal
tyranny wrapped around the throat of every American citizen, namely American taxpayers.
See: The Theory is Now a Conspiracy—I
As it was in the beginning, so shall it be today. It is the average American, not the powerful politician, or
 the Ivy League elitist, or even the so-called “eyes and ears of the people,” the press, who must rise
up by the millions and demand control of their country, acting as a single unit in the defense of freedom
and liberty, not partisan power.

And so it is…

Over a million average Americans traveled from over forty-five states across the country, to gather in
Washington DC this past weekend, in peaceful opposition to all that is wrong with our current federal government

run wild. But that was only one public demonstration of the largest gathering of
citizens in US history, of all political, ethnic, economic stripes, with one purpose in mind. Saving their

So it is in this story…

On September 10, 2009, I released a column that created a firestorm across the nation.

The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie
brought to national light, a story that had
apparently been brewing on a few tiny little citizen blogs for months.
The two DNC documents were originally emailed to me in pdf attachment form, by an anonymous reader.
That email included a link where the documents had been posted and I first mentioned and linked
these documents in my column of September 9, 2009,
Tennessee Grand Jury Joins DOJ in Obstructing Justice
Upon reviewing the docs in pdf form and online, I picked up the phone and started dialing state Election
Commission offices, requesting copies of whatever had been filed by the DNC in 2008. Within
moments, documents started rolling off of my fax machine and all of them were the DNC Certification of
Nomination form that was absent any certification of constitutional eligibility for Barack Hussein Obama
and Joe Biden.
It was on this basis that Part I of this story was written and released, feeling confident in the pattern
and verifying with certainty that the DNC had failed to certify the Obama-Biden ticket as meeting all
legal constitutional requirements for the offices they sought, at least in many states.
Not only did this column ignite a firestorm of interest across the political spectrum, crashing the
Canada Free Press servers from sheer traffic volume off the charts, it ignited an army of citizen
investigators ready and willing to jump in with both feet and participate in gathering additional
information from their home districts across the land. I have received a volume of information via fax
and email from different states since, and more is pouring in…
There are too many citizens involved to list or even know them all, but they are all an equal part in this
ongoing effort to expose what could be the coup of the century, and I thank them all!
Thanks to them, within 24 hours of releasing The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie, I
would have to reconsider some of my early assumptions in that column.

In Part I, I made the assertion that the “short form” (the one without constitutional certification) had
been filed in all fifty states. That assumption was incorrect. It now appears that the short form was
filed in only forty-nine states, the “long form” (with constitutional certification) being filed in Hawaii

I also neglected to check what form the DNC filed in 2004 for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. It turns out that
at least in some states, the same “short form” document missing constitutional certification was filed
in 2004. In my state, they only hold documents for two election cycles and then discard them. So I
have not looked at any documents from earlier elections, but clearly, the “short form” DNC doc was
around before 2008. Still…

Two Different DNC Docs

As readers aware of the Hawaii “long form” document suggested, the Hawaii doc validates BOTH DNC
docs as “authentic” since both were prepared, signed, dated and notarized on the same day by the
same people, and both were delivered to state Election Commissions as certification for the
Obama-Biden ticket. That ends all speculation about whether or not both docs are real and authentic.
And as another reader pointed out, Hawaii state statute 11-113 requires this language.
This certainly explains why the “long form”
document including this language was filed in
Hawaii. However, it does nothing to explain
why this same document was not used in
every state in the country, since
the US Constitution and election laws require that
all candidates meet these requirements, and
that the Parties certify that their nominees
meet these requirements. Further, most states seem to have very similar statues to that of Hawaii.
Candidates must meet and the Parties must certify compliance with all requirements for office.

RNC Certifications

For the record, throughout the years and states investigated thus far, the RNC has not failed to certify
their candidates as nominees who meet all legal constitutional requirements even once.
In every case, the RNC has filed the same form in every state with the following language included.
false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 alt=image title="insert picture" v:shapes="_x0000_i1036">

The Question Remains

Why two different documents from the DNC?—And now, more questions arise…
The good news is this—two documents means two sets of signatures from the same individuals at the
same time. Like many readers, I too noticed that while the signatures on the two DNC docs looked
very similar, there were some anomalies, specifically, in the document including certification of
Obama’s eligibility.
As I am not a document or handwriting expert, I sent the documents for professional analysis, to
someone who is in that profession. They too offered their credentials and services and accepted NO
form of compensation or benefit for doing so.
The graphologist who inspected both documents has prepared and delivered an official report, of which
I have an original copy. The graphologist has agreed to let me use the findings and has further agreed
to testify to the following under oath if asked. For obvious reasons, I will not disclose the identity of
this individual at this time.
The full report is very detailed and somewhat lengthy. But here is the meat of the findings…
This alone might explain why there are TWO DNC certification documents.
Hawaii, in the unique position of being the alleged (but not yet proven) birth place of
Barack Hussein Obama, demanded that the letter of the law be followed and that the proper certification
language appear in the DNC certification for Hawaii.
You will remember that Hawaii officials have on several occasions asserted that “Barack Obama is a
natural born citizen,” without offering a single shred of evidence or even a detailed explanation for
how they arrived at that place of certain knowing.
It’s easy… They had a document signed by Nancy Pelosi that certified this to be the case.
But why wasn’t that same document filed across the country? The graphologist may have just
answered that question.

Far Reaching Implications

The US Constitution has very specific requirements for the office of President and Vice President and
NO federal or state statute supersedes those Article II requirements.
The political Parties and each state Elector is charged with the legal responsibility of vetting and
certifying that the candidates they nominate meet all necessary legal requirements for the office
sought. The RNC has done that, the DNC has NOT, except in the case of Obama’s alleged birth place,
Where does this place Nancy Pelosi? In a place of knowing, aiding and abetting? How about the
Secretary of the DNC, or the notary of public?
What about all of the state electors or the 49 state Democratic Parties who rubber stamped the DNC
document lacking certification of constitutional eligibility, not once, but more than once?

What about the members of congress who were to certify the overall election results as not only
tabulated correctly, but legit?
The citizen investigation on this matter continues and there are so many average Americans involved
in collecting evidence at this point, that they won’t be able to hide everything from everyone involved,
nor silence a single individual who holds all of the cards, because Americans all over this country are
looking at documents and asking questions.
Why TWO DNC certification documents? The RNC has only one…
Never mind what I make of this information…. What do you make of it?
This is obviously a developing story. I encourage all readers to engage in the investigative process
directly, and assume nothing. I made that mistake once already!
Demographic bomb explodes
Exclusive: Don Feder covers results of falling birthrates ignored by population controllers

THE Population Problem Is UNDER Population NOT OVER Population As Countries Are Literally Dying Out Due To The Contraceptive/Abortive Mentality Of The Age


Demographic Winter Exposing The Lies Of The Population Control Gore/Global Warming Crowd Is A Crisis That We Can’t Ignore


New Documentary Exposes Direct Link Between Failing Global Economy And Demographic Winter - Obama Promotes Euthanasia In Healthcare Plan


Exposing the Population Problem Lie – People Are NOT The Enemy Contrary To What The Certifiably Insane Would Have You Believe Like Pro-Abortion Obama Legal Pick Dawn Johnsen


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

How Obama is exploiting phony 'crisis' to raise taxes, grab power, destroy U.S. sovereignty

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama's bogus 'cap-and-trade' claim 
Denmark pays highest power bills in Europe despite wind-based technology

Treasury: 'Cap-and-trade' to cost $200 billion annually
Department memos prove legislation would pose significant burden to economy
--Washington Times

Amanda Carpenter


Energy office

Officials at the Treasury Department think cap-and-trade legislation would cost taxpayers hundreds of billion in taxes, according to internal documents circulated within the agency and provided to The Washington Times.

These estimates were made in Treasury memos, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through a Freedom of Information Act request that sought information related to proposals originated by Treasury involving "cap-and-trade schemes" that deal with "carbon," "carbon dioxide" or "greenhouse gases." The memos were given to The Times by CEI.
The House narrowly passed cap-and-trade legislation earlier this year, and now the Senate stands poised to take up its version of the bill at any time, although it has been largely overshadowed by health care reform efforts. The ultimate cost of the bill to taxpayers has been the subject of fierce debate between supporters and opponents of the legislation. CEI, a free-market think tank that opposes the bill, thinks the Treasury documents prove the legislation would pose a significant burden to the economy.

A memo prepared by Judson Jaffe, who works in the Treasury's Office of Environment and Energy, referenced President Obama's remarks on energy policy in his State of the Union Address and said, given the president's plan to auction emissions allowances, "a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually."

These figures differ from other cost estimates for the legislation produced more recently by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.

"These are candid, internal discussions of what they are telling each other and what they won't tell you," said Christopher C. Horner, a CEI senior fellow who filed the request.

"The words cap and trade were chosen for a reason, and that is to avoid a vote on tax," said Mr. Horner, who also is the author of the New York Times best-seller "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming." "This memo tells you it's a tax. Why else are they discussing hundreds of billions of revenue to be taken from the taxpayer?"

Other cost estimates and "key challenges" laid out in Mr. Jaffe's memo were redacted. Mr. Horner said he intends to litigate against the department in order to have that material released.

The office that issued these memos is relatively new. Former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. created it in August 2008, during the Bush administration. However, Mr. Horner said Treasury has "no authority" to manage such programs, but created the office "hoping it would come."

Treasury said, in the memos, it justifiably created the energy office because "as the lead U.S. agency supporting economic prosperity and financial security, Treasury is uniquely positioned to provide the executive branch with informed and credible policy options to address these issues, to implement chosen options in its areas of operational responsibility, and to communicate those choices to Congress, foreign governments, international institutions, as well as stakeholders in the business community and civil society."

Included in the 10 pages of memos released to Mr. Horner by Treasury were several detailed discussions about how Treasury could properly regulate the carbon market.

One unsigned memo titled "carbon market oversight issues" distributed during the transition period between the Bush and the Obama administrations proposed the creation of a "Carbon Fed" to manage carbon allowances in a way similar to the way the Federal Reserve regulates the supply of money.

Stripping ACORN

A video expose that caught workers at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) giving advice on how to obtain federal funds to run a brothel is giving lawmakers a new reason to restart attempts to kill the organization's federal funding.

Many Republicans were calling to cut off ACORN's federal funds last fall amid accusations of the group's involvement in voter-registration fraud schemes during the election campaign.

That push began again on Monday when Sen. Mike Johanns, Nebraska Republican, introduced an amendment to a housing and transportation bill to strike all ACORN funding from the legislation. "I'd love to do this across the board," Mr. Johanns told The Washington Times in a telephone interview. "But we are not going to stop here; we are going to follow the ACORN money."

"Their story just gets worse and worse," he said. "We've got state investigations of voter fraud and criminal activity and charges pending, and then the videos surface where people literally went to different ACORN offices and were very upfront they were going to run a prostitution ring, and they got advice for how they could list it on a tax return so it wouldn't be obvious."

"That's as outrageous as it gets," he added.

His amendment was successfully added to the bill by an overwhelming vote of 87 to 3 Monday evening.

The videos capturing ACORN workers giving advice on how to conceal a prostitution ring were recorded by James O'Keefe, who posed as a pimp, and Hannah Giles, who pretended she was a prostitute, during their sit-down talks with ACORN workers. Those videos were posted on






WorldNetDaily Exclusive
House health-care talks 'purely partisan' 
GOP's Shadegg: Obama making no effort to work with Republicans


WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Tea-party message: 'Our government's out of control' 
Event organizer describes 'beautiful sea of peaceful, chaotic marching' in D.C.


Who's czar-y now? Look at what Cass Sunstein drafted ...

--WND Exclusive--



Cass Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
Asserts government should regulate broadcasting as it imposed end to segregation

Posted: September 15, 2009
9:30 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Cass Sunstein

JERUSALEM – President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves, WND has learned.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Until now, Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."

Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."

He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.

Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.

Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the fairness doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."

He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.

But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.




GOP moves to stop all federal funding of ACORN
House leadership calls on Obama, IRS to sever ties with group



Senate votes to deny funds to ACORN
Comes as group suffers bad publicity from undercover videos
--ABC News



ABC's Gibson 'didn't know' about ACORN scandal
Anchor tells radio audience 'maybe that's just one you leave to the cables'
--Real Clear Politics

Where did Obama learn to destroy America?
Read Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' to see the playbook for 'change'
--WND Superstore

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Hot 'Liberty and Tyranny' hits million-book mark 
Called 'action plan for returning conservatives to elective office'



How Many Foreclosed Mortgages Did ACORN Secure?

Andrea Lafferty

Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition asked the Attorney General to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the radical group ACORN and its role in securing failed mortgages for its members.
TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty said the prosecutor should be charged with investigating and discovering the role of ACORN-secured mortgages in the failure of institutions who were pressured into making these mortgages.
“The videotapes demonstrate one level of ACORN corruption,” said Mrs. Lafferty.  “But we suspect that ACORN played a very major role in securing mortgages for many who could not possibly pay them or even make the first payment.
“The financial crisis we hear so much about in the media was a crisis of Washington’s making – many who had their homes foreclosed were unqualified and unable to make the very first mortgage payment.
“What role did ACORN play in this conspiracy against the well-intentioned American taxpayer?
“Who at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been overseeing federal funds given to ACORN and exactly how much was handed over to ACORN?
“We need to measure exactly how many mortgages ACORN secured and how many of them defaulted.
“This can serve as an important but expensive lesson for those in government who abuse the public’s trust and take advantage of the charity and good hearts of the American people.
“This requires an independent counsel or special prosecutor because ACORN was a key player in President Obama’s campaign and in the campaigns of many in leadership positions in Congress.”

ObamaCare: Dem Senator Warns of 'Big, Big Tax' on Middle Class...

Dem Senator Warns of 'Big, Big Tax' on Middle Class in Baucus Bill

September 16, 2009 7:45 AM

false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 alt=Davis title=Davis border=0 v:shapes="_x0000_i1051"> ABC News' Teddy Davis reports:

It's not every day that you hear a Democratic senator charge that a fellow Democrat is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ripped into the health-care bill developed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mt., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The Baucus proposal would impose, starting in 2013, a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for "high-cost plans" -- defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

Health economists believe a tax on high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices.

The tax contemplated by Baucus is also a big revenue raiser. It is expected to raise $200 billion, money that Baucus is hoping to use to pay for subsidies for the uninsured.

Given how much money this kind of tax can raise, Rockefeller says he understands why it is "tempting."

The West Virginia Democrat worries, however, that a lot of middle class workers, like the coal miners in his state, will end up facing "a big, big tax" under the Baucus bill because they currently enjoy generous employer-provided health care benefits which they receive tax free.

Referring to Baucus, Rockefeller said, "He should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down and lower benefits because they are self insured, most of them, because they are larger. They will pass it down, lower benefits, and probably this will mean higher premiums for coal miners who are getting very good health care benefits for a very good reason. That is, like steelworkers and others, they are doing about the most dangerous job that can be done in America."

"So that’s not really a smart idea," Rockefeller continued. "In fact, it’s a very dangerous idea, and I’m not even sure the coal miners in West Virginia are aware that this is what is waiting if this bill passes."

Rockefeller made his comments on a conference call with reporters which was sponsored by the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

Rockefeller, who sits on the Finance Committee, said that he cannot support the Baucus bill unless it receives major improvements during the amendment process.

Baucus, the Finance chair, is scheduled to discuss his "chairman's mark" with reporters on Capitol Hill at 12 noon on Wednesday.
Rockefeller Says 'No Way' to Latest Bill...
Following up on his This Week appearance where he promised to fight on for the public option, Sen. Jay Rockefeller blasted the draft bill produced by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus: “there is no way in its present form that I vote for it unless it changes in the amendment process by vast amounts.”
He’s not alone.  Fellow Finance Committee member Ron Wyden is livid too.  Expect a rocky mark-up next week.  As one top Democrat told me, the fundamental problem is that Democrats “are being asked to support a bipartisan bill that doesn’t have bipartisan support.”  The compromise without the cover.
Mark Levin Book Hits One Million in Sales; Never Reviewed by NYT, WASHINGTON POST...

Never Reviewed by NYT or WashPost, Mark Levin's 'Liberty and Tyranny' Has Now Sold 1 Million Copies

Tuesday, September 15, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief



Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin, has been one of the Top Ten books on the New York Times best seller list for 24 weeks.


( - Without ever having been reviewed by either the New York Times or the Washington Post, Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto has now sold one million copies, according to its publisher, Threshold Editions.

Levin is a nationally syndicated radio host, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and served as chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department.
Liberty and Tyranny has been riding high on non-fiction bestseller lists ever since it was released in late March. It debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times best seller list and has remained in the Top Ten on that list for 24 straight weeks.  It is currently No. 7.  (Levin's previous two books, Men in Black: How the Supeme Court is Destroying America and Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish, were also New York Times best sellers.)
Despite Liberty and Tyranny’s tremendous sales and high ranking on the Times’ best seller list, the Times itself has never reviewed the book, only giving it a few blurbs in its ‘Inside the List” feature that runs in the Sunday edition.
The Washington Post has also never reviewed the book.
Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto lays out a vision for America that is rooted in the Constitution and in the Founding Fathers’ vision of strictly limited government and individual self-reliance. As such, its message stands in stark contrast to the agenda being advanced by President Barack Obama, which includes a government takeover of General Motors and a government makeover of the entire U.S. health care system.



White House collects Web users' data 'without notice'... - Can you say enemies list?



Fourth Videotape Reveals ACORN Advising 'Pimp,' 'Prostitute' in California... 





Lead Story

What’s missing from the New York Times coverage of ACORN

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 16, 2009 12:09 AM

The Fishwrap of Record has finally seen fit to tell its readers about the latest ACORN scandals (the San Bernardino tapes, which don’t get a mention, are beyond belief). True to form, the New York Times commits grievous sins of omission that whitewash the paper’s own role in deliberately covering up ACORN’s illicit activities before Election Day last November.

The Times article by Scott Shane casts the ACORN stings as a purely partisan game: “Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe.”

The lead sentence paints any investigative journalism of ACORN’s long history of taxpayer abuses and shady business and campaign finance practices as opportunistic attacks on Barack Obama: “For months during last year’s presidential race, conservatives sought to tar the Obama campaign with accusations of voter fraud and other transgressions by the national community organizing group Acorn, which had done some work for the campaign.”

But it was a then-liberal whistleblower Anita MonCrief, formerly of ACORN affiliate Project Vote, who worked extensively with New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom last year on several investigative pieces exposing the financial shenanigans in the ACORN web of money-shuffling, non-profit, tax-exempt affiliates. Strom called MonCrief a “gold mine” in July 2008. One of the last stories Strom wrote — blowing the whistle on an internal report raising red flags about ACORN’s massive potential violations of federal law– appeared in the Times on October 21, 2008:

An internal report by a lawyer for the community organizing group Acorn raises questions about whether the web of relationships among its 174 affiliates may have led to violations of federal laws.

The group, formally known as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has been in the news over accusations that it is involved in voter registration fraud, charges it says are overblown and politically motivated.

Republicans have tried to make an issue of Senator Barack Obama’s ties to the group, which he represented in a lawsuit in 1995. The Obama campaign has denied any connection with Acorn’s voter registration drives.

The June 18 report, written by Elizabeth Kingsley, a Washington lawyer, spells out her concerns about potentially improper use of charitable dollars for political purposes; money transfers among the affiliates; and potential conflicts created by employees working for multiple affiliates, among other things.

It also offers a different account of the embezzlement of almost $1 million by the brother of Acorn’s founder, Wade Rathke, than the one the organization gave in July, when word of the theft became public.

“A full analysis of potential liability will require consultation with a knowledgeable white-collar criminal attorney,” Ms. Kingsley wrote of the embezzlement, which occurred in 2000 but was not disclosed until this summer.

In a telephone interview on Monday, Ms. Kingsley and Bertha Lewis, Acorn’s top executive, said the group had begun addressing the concerns raised in the report.

“Has everything been done yet? No,” Ms. Lewis said. “We’ve been at this for three months, and we have taken everything she said in the report very seriously. It’s a huge undertaking.”

Over the weekend, Ms. Kingsley said, the national board adopted several good-governance policies, like appointing an audit committee for the first time.

Disclosure of her report, which was distributed to Acorn and 10 affiliates, increases pressure on the organization at a particularly troublesome time. Besides the inquiries into its voter registration efforts, Acorn faces demands for back taxes by the Internal Revenue Service and various state tax authorities. At the same time, foundations that have backed Acorn are withholding support.

Ms. Kingsley’s concerns about the way Acorn affiliates work together could fuel the controversy over Acorn’s voter registration efforts, which are largely underwritten by an affiliated charity, Project Vote. Project Vote hires Acorn to do voter registration work on its behalf, and the two groups say they have registered 1.3 million voters this year.

As a federally tax-exempt charity, Project Vote is subject to prohibitions on partisan political activity. But Acorn, which is a nonprofit membership corporation under Louisiana law, though subject to federal taxation, is not bound by the same restrictions.

“Project Vote and Acorn have a written agreement that specifies that all work is nonpartisan,” Michael Slater, Project Vote’s new executive director, wrote in answer to e-mailed questions about the relationship.

But Ms. Kingsley found that the tight relationship between Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner. Until the embezzlement scandal broke last summer, Project Vote’s board was made up entirely of Acorn staff members and Acorn members.

Ms. Kingsley’s report raised concerns not only about a lack of documentation to demonstrate that no charitable money was used for political activities but also about which organization controlled strategic decisions.


As I reported in May (see here and here), multiple e-mail messages between Strom and MonCrief show that the Times reporter grasped the depth and breadth of the ACORN racket:

In an e-mail message to whistleblower MonCrief last summer, New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom told the truth: “The real story to all this is how these myriad entities allow them to shuffle money around so much that no one really knows what’s getting spent on what.”

By October 6, 2008, Strom had thrown in the towel in the wake of blistering phone conversations with the Obama campaign. She wrote:

“I’m calling a halt to my efforts. I just had two unpleasant calls with the Obama campaign, wherein the spokesman was screaming and yelling and cursing me, calling me a rightwing nut and a conspiracy theorist and everything else…I’d still like to get that file from you when you have a chance to send it. One of these days, the truth is going to come out.”


I uploaded the entire e-mail exchange here in PDF form. Be sure to go back and read or re-read them all.

Earth to NYTimes reporter Scott Shane: It wasn’t a right-wing partisan who wrote these words:

It was your fellow reporter Stephanie Strom.

Let me repeat what Strom said to make sure you didn’t miss that key paragraph:

“The real story to all this is how these myriad entities allow them to shuffle money around so much that no one really knows what’s getting spent on what — and for the charities like the housing orgs, that’s a problem. Charitable money cannot be spent on political activites. It’s a big no-no that can cost charitable organizations their exemptions.”


The files that Strom was planning to get from MonCrief (files that I have since obtained and reviewed) were spreadsheets of donors from Democrat campaigns — Obama, Clinton, Kerry — as well as from the Democratic National Committee that had been passed on to non-profit, tax-exempt, and supposedly non-partisan Project Vote. There were no Republican donor lists. MonCrief told Strom that the Clinton and Obama campaigns were in “constant contact” with Project Vote. A few weeks after I reported in August 2008 on how Obama hid an $800,000 payment to ACORN through “Citizen Services, Inc,” Strom told MonCrief: “Am also onto the Obama connection, sadly. Would love the donor lists. As for helping the Repubs, they’re already onto this like white on rice. SIGH.”

But the damning story of coordinated corruption between Democrats and Project Vote never appeared. The Times suddenly “cut bait” — and the story never saw the light of day in the purported Paper of Record.

All of this information is readily available on the Internet, and MonCrief continues to expose ACORN’s tentacles and thuggery at her own blog here despite Project Vote’s litigious efforts to shut her down. News outlets including the Examiner and Fox News have relied on her whistle-blowing testimony and reporting for months — including her knowledge of ACORN’s Muscle for Money program & the H&R Block shakedown, and ACORN’s gala for Democrats in New York in June to celebrate its 39th anniversary.

Times readers, alas, will learn none of this from reading its story today about ACORN, which ends this way:

It was Acorn’s election activities that drew opponents’ attention last year, including registration cards filled out by Acorn workers in the name of Mickey Mouse and other imaginary voters. Republicans highlighted the fact that the Obama campaign had paid more than $800,000 to an Acorn affiliate for get-out-the-vote efforts.


I will end with a quote from Strom, who wrote in an e-mail on October 6, 2008:

“One of these days, the truth is going to come out.”

Indeed, nearly a year after Strom wrote those words, the full truth about the ACORN racket is finally coming to light. But it’s no thanks to the partisan news suppressors at the New York Times.

And you can quote me on that…or not.



A tale of two protection rackets: ACORN’s — and the media’s

September 16, 2009 09:00 AM by Michelle Malkin

A tale of two protection rackets: ACORN’s — and the media’s

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 16, 2009 09:00 AM

Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

ACORN Watch: A “sting”-ing indictment of media hypocrisy
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

Undercover journalism is only acceptable when it fits a liberal agenda. That is the message from “professional” reporters and left-wing activists outraged about three successful video stings targeting President Obama’s old friends at the left-wing, tax-subsidized outfit ACORN.

Conservative documentarian James O’Keefe and writer Hannah Giles, working for the website, posed as a pimp and prostitute during visits to ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Brooklyn. ACORN housing officials and tax advisers offered them brazen suggestions on how to lie on their applications, disguise their income, obscure their child sex ring business, and hide cash for abusive johns (“When you buy the house with the backyard, you get a tin,” an ACORN counselor in New York City told Giles, “and you bury it down in there, cover it, and put the grass over it.”

Summing up the ACORN Housing Corporation philosophy, another Brooklyn ACORN official told the undercover pair bluntly: “Honesty is not going to get you the house.”

ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson blasted the investigation as “gotcha journalism.” Echoing ACORN’s defenders, MSNBC anchor Norah O’Donnell fretted on Tuesday that Giles and O’Keefe’s methods “might be viewed as entrapment. That some conservative activists used hidden cameras to get this stuff on camera.”

Ms. O’‘Donnell has apparently forgotten the inglorious history of news “entrapment” by her betters at NBC News.

This is the network that surreptitiously rigged GM pickup trucks in staged crash tests in 1993 to show that the vehicles were unsafe – and failed to inform viewers that the simulations used incendiary devices to ignite the explosions. Jane Pauley admitted in a nationally televised apology that “NBC’s contractors did put incendiary devices under the trucks to insure there would be a fire if gasoline were released from the gas tank. NBC personnel knew this before we aired the program, but the public was not informed because consultants at the scene told us the devices did not start the fire. We agree with G.M. that we should have told the viewer about these devices.”

This is the network that pioneered the “To Catch a Predator” series – an investigative sting operation to nab Internet pedophiles. Until last year, the journalists worked with activist group Perverted Justice, whose members posed as children in web chat rooms to lure alleged pedophiles to a residential home.

This is the network that sent out an intrepid NBC News reporter in a canoe to cover treacherous New Jersey flooding in 2005 – only to be shown up by passers-by who sloshed in front of the camera and demonstrated that the water was only a few inches deep.

This is the network that tried to arrange Islamophobia stings at NASCAR events in 2006 to try and “expose” racism among Southerners. The network worked with a Muslim activist who sent a recruitment notice across the Internet:

“I have been talking with a producer of the NBC Dateline show and he is in the process of filming a piece on anti-Muslim and anti-Arab discrimination in the USA. They are looking for some Muslim male candidates for their show who would be willing to go to non-Muslim gatherings and see if they attract any discriminatory comments or actions while being filmed…NBC is willing to fly in someone and cover their weekend expenses. The filming would take place all day on Saturday and Sunday.”

The same sting tactics were adopted by ABC News’s Primetime Live news show in Alabama and Texas.

“Professional” undercover journalists see their work as serving the public and national interests, exposing wrongdoing, and blowing the whistle on illicit activities that would not otherwise see the light of day. But this is exactly what the ACORN stings have done.

Taxpayers deserve to know how ACORN and its vast web of non-profit, tax-exempt affiliates are using their money (40 percent of the group’s revenue comes from the government). Publicly-funded ACORN tax advisers and mortgage counselors across the country are trained by the flagship group. In fact, ACORN is now managing apartments in Bedford-Stuyvesant, New York for the newly completed Atlantic Avenue Apartments. Yet, ACORN Housing Corporation has a long history of abusing federal housing funds and Americorps grants for political activities.

Head-in-the-sand ABC News anchor Charle Gibson claimed he “didn’t know” about the ACORN scandal this week, and snarked that “maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.”

Giles and O’Keefe’s investigations (and there are more to come, according to’s Andrew Breitbart) have exposed not one, but two protection rackets: ACORN’s —and the ostrich media’s.



Home invasion robbers pose as Obamacare activists

September 16, 2009 07:52 AM by Michelle Malkin



Home invasion robbers pose as Obamacare activists

By Michelle Malkin  •  September 16, 2009 07:52 AM


This man is wearing scrubs, but he’s not a doctor.

He was part of a ring of violent thugs who posed as Obamacare supporters to pull off a terrifying home invasion robbery.

Newsday reports (hat tip – The Anchoress):

They were well-dressed when they knocked on the door of a Huntington home last month and said they had information about President Barack Obama’s health care plan.

That’s how they got inside to commit a violent home invasion on Aug. 29, a Suffolk prosecutor said Monday.

Benjamin Thompson had a stethoscope around his neck and Natalie Desir carried a clipboard with pamphlets, Assistant District Attorney Glenn Kurtzrock said after their arraignments in Riverhead.

A woman who lives at the house answered the door and said she would take one of the pamphlets. That’s when Thompson, 31, of Brooklyn and Desir, 26, of Nyack forced their way inside, Kurtzrock said.

He gave the following account:

Another man, Vance Jackson, had been hiding outside and also forced his way into the home. Jackson, 46, of Yonkers took the woman’s boyfriend upstairs and shot him in the neck, chased him downstairs and shot him several more times.

Thompson shot the female resident in the foot while she was sitting next to her 2-year-old daughter and also pistol-whipped the woman’s mother, injuring her head.

The three fled with about $4,000 in cash in a getaway car driven by Theodore Briggs, 40, of the Bronx. A fifth suspect who was outside is still at large.


Thompson had been previously convicted of attempted robbery and rape. Jackson’s rap sheet included robbery and criminal possession of a weapon.

The Daily News reports that the “two hatched the home invasion plan while waiting to meet with their parole officers in the Bronx.”

Imagine the national uproar that would be occurring right now if these home invaders had posed as Tea Party activists.

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obama to make illegals eligible for health care' 
Upcoming immigration bill seen as 'backdoor' to bring millions into plan

'Obama to make illegals eligible for health care'
Upcoming immigration bill seen as 'backdoor' to bring millions into plan

Posted: September 15, 2009
10:05 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Roger Hedgecock

The Obama administration intends to "backdoor" illegal immigrants into its proposed health-care plan by passing an immigration reform bill that would give legal status to as many as 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S., charged Radio America talk-radio host Rodger Hedgecock today in Washington, D.C.

Calling comprehensive immigration reform the Obama administration's "second act," Hedgecock said illegal immigrants initially would be excluded from the health care plan but would have access to it once comprehensive immigration reform is passed by Congress.

Hedgecock charged the administration's immigration plan amounts to providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

He suggested the administration will follow the steps of the twice-defeated comprehensive immigration reform legislation proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., by including ample provisions for establishing a "pathway to citizenship" and providing for "guest workers" to give legal status to illegal immigrants already in the U.S.
Pointing to the anti-big-government rally in the nation's capital last weekend, Hedgecock said "America is waking up and is determined to have a say."

When asked by WND what his illegal immigration reform suggestions would be, Hedgecock responded, "Enforce the immigration laws already on the books."

Hedgecock told WND that some 150 radio listeners from his nationally syndicated show have traveled to Washington at their own expense to lobby members of Congress during the annual "Hold their Feet to the Fire" event, which began yesterday.

Hedgecock is headlining some 45 radio talk show hosts from across the nation who are participating in the two-day event, hosted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson drew national attention when he shouted "You lie!" during last week's joint session of Congress when President Obama claimed no illegal immigrants would receive health care services under the president's proposed health-care reform legislation.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who is leading bipartisan negotiations in the Senate with his "gang of six," has promised the compromise bill presented to the Senate would include enforcement provisions to bar illegal immigrants from buying health care insurance through a new insurance marketplace, according to the New York Times.

On Monday, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., scheduled a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for Sept. 22 on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform: How the Current Immigration Law Negatively Impacts America's Agricultural Industry and Food Service."

Schumer has announced his intention to introduce new comprehensive immigration reform legislation to the Senate this year.

Red Alert has previously reported that illegal immigrants make up a large portion of those in the United States who lack health care, with immigrants – both legal and illegal – accounting for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured over the last two decades, since 1989.

WND has previously reported that President Obama in February, his second month in office, affirmed on a Spanish-language radio show that his goal was to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, even though his administration had not yet announced the goal to the American public at large.

"Comprehensive immigration reform" became catchwords in the 109th and 110th Congresses for the legislation co-sponsored by Kennedy and McCain to create a "path of citizenship" and "guest worker program."

Characterized as a "shamnesty" bill by opponents that viewed the measure as amnesty for illegal immigrants, the U.S. Senate finally defeated repeated Bush administration attempts that trace back to 2005. A June 5, 2007, vote on cloture failed in the Senate by a vote of 34-61.

Rep. Pete Stark 'won't pee' on constituent
'I wouldn't dignify you by peeing on your leg, it wouldn't be worth wasting the urine'


Obama betrays blacks in D.C.
Walter E. Williams highlights bottom-of-barrel performance of Washington's schools

A Minority ViewWalter Williams

Obama betrays blacks in D.C.

Posted: September 16, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Instead of President Obama addressing school students across the nation, he might have accomplished more by focusing his attention on the educational rot in schools in the nation's capital. The American Legislative Exchange Council recently came out with its 15th edition of "Report Card on American Education: A State-by-State Analysis." Academic achievement in no state is much to write home aboutm but in Washington, D.C., by any measure, it approaches criminal fraud. Let's look at the numbers.

Only 14 percent of Washington's fourth-graders score at or above proficiency in the reading and math portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test. Their national rank of 51 makes them the nation's worst. Eighth-graders are even further behind with only 12 percent scoring at or above proficiency in reading and 8 percent in math, and again the worst performance in the nation. One shouldn't be surprised by Washington student performance on college admissions tests. They have an average composite SAT score of 925 and ACT score of 19.1, compared to the national average respectively of 1017 and 21.1. In terms of national ranking, their SAT and ACT rankings are identical to their fourth- and eighth-grade rankings – dead last.

"From Crayons to Condoms" lays out myriad reasons America's government schools have failed our children

Washington's political and education establishment might excuse these outcomes by arguing that because most students are black, the schools are underfunded and overcrowded. Let's look at such a claim. During the 2006-07 academic year, expenditures per pupil averaged $13,848 compared to a national average of $9,389. That made Washington's per pupil expenditures the third-highest in the nation, coming in behind New Jersey ($14,998) and New York ($14,747). Washington's teacher-student ratio is 13.9 compared with the national average of 15.3 students per teacher, ranking 18th in the nation. What about teacher salaries? Washington's teachers are the highest paid in the nation, having an average annual salary of $61,195 compared with the nation's average $46,593. Despite the academic performance of Washington's students, they have a graduation rate of 61 percent compared to the national average of 70 percent. That suggests the issuance of fraudulent high school diplomas.

Currently, Washington, D.C., has an Opportunity Scholarship Program, which allows qualified low-income families to claim up to $7,500 per student toward a private education of their choice. Obama's Democratic Congress, acting on the behalf of the education establishment, has killed the program, and there's the possibility that the 1,700 students currently enrolled will have to return to D.C. public schools.

The staunchest opponents of school choice are hypocrites. They want, demand and can afford school choice for themselves, but for others not so affluent, school choice is a different matter. President and Mrs. Barack Obama enrolled their two daughters in Washington's most prestigious Sidwell Friends School, forking over $28,000 a year for each girl. Whilst senator from Illinois, the Obamas enrolled their girls in the University of Chicago's Laboratory School, a private school in Chicago charging almost $20,000 for each girl. A Heritage Foundation survey found that 37 percent of the members of the House of Representatives and 45 percent of senators in the 110th Congress sent their children to private schools. Public school teachers enroll their own children in nonpublic schools to a much greater extent than the general public, in some cases four and five times greater. In Cincinnati, about 41 percent of public school teachers send their children to nonpublic schools. In Chicago it is 38 percent, Los Angeles 24 percent, New York 32 percent, and Philadelphia 44 percent. The behavior of public school teachers is quite suggestive. It's like my offering to take you to a restaurant and you find out that neither the chef nor the waiters eat there. That suggests they have some inside information from which you might benefit.

For people in power to tolerate the Washington, D.C., school system is despicable. For a black president to do so might qualify as betrayal.

Obama Talks to Stimulated Buddies


The president works himself up into a Marxist sweat.

Obama Talks to Stimulated Buddies

September 15, 2009


Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!




RUSH: Tom in Williamsburg, Virginia, you're up next on the EIB Network.  Hi.

CALLER:  Rush, it seems to me that ACORN is just replacing the mob.  They're doing the work, it seems, that the mob refuses to do, just like you're doing the work that Charlie Gibson refuses to do.

RUSH:  Well, except the mob is still there.  What ACORN's doing -- your analogy is somewhat close -- what ACORN's doing is the work Obama is doing, but they got caught.  You know, Obama is ACORN.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH:  Obama inspires ACORN.  Oh, by the way, I am watching -- I'm not listening, of course, because I am hosting the program -- but I am watching Obama in Pittsburgh and somebody is going to catch hell because he has no powder on and the lights there are reflecting off his forehead.  This is not godlike, this does not look good 'cause it looks like he's got the Nixon sweat going.  Looks like he's glistening out there.  Look at the way the lights are reflecting.  It's especially bad up there on PMSNBC, which is, of course, his official outlet.  But he finished a speech in Ohio to the autoworkers.  Now he's in Pittsburgh at the AFL-CIO.  So you could say ACORN's a mob.  I thought we were the mob, wait a minute.  I thought we were the unruly mob.  Well, regardless.  ACORN is doing the work Obama is doing.  It's all one happy family.  And this is Obama's America.


RUSH: Obama is in Pittsburgh now talking with autoworkers.  That was in Ohio. Now he's talking to AFL-CIO members.  This is really cool.  Obama's out talking to the groups that already got stimulated.  He's talking to groups that already got their stimulus cash.  He's talking to them about health care.  Now, listen to this.  This is from the State-Controlled Associated Press. "The events are designed to be heavy on working class appeal in hopes of boosting the White House credentials with the middle class voters so crucial to the president's economic agenda."  Is that tone deaf or what?  Do you think going out and making a speech to people who have already got stimulus money and the health care plan is basically to ensure their health care plans... Do they really think that the way to get middle class support is to go out and kowtow to unions?

The middle class is paying for all this! The middle class is paying for these people who have already been stimulated.  Meanwhile, the shovel-ready jobs are still shovel and they're still ready and nobody's working on them.  Stimulus payments have slowed except to Obama's buddies to whom he's now speaking.  And they think Obama is speaking to his buddies is going to inspire the middle class to get back on board?  And try this from the New York Times: "For Obama, a Chance to Reform the Street is Fading."  Now, "reforming the Street" in this case means Wall Street.  "After bailing out most of them, Obama warns them not to expect it next time.  He also warned those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences and expect that next time American taxpayers will be there to break their fall."  So you're going to get more government oversight as if they were outside observers in the first place.  This is typical. 

"Hey, we didn't know what was going on. We're spectators here and you guys are gaming the system and you guys are unfairly paying yourselves bonuses."  It's already very highly regulated.




RUSH: You want to hear some Marxism?  There's no other way to describe this.  I'll let you hear some Marxism.  This is Obama this afternoon in Pittsburgh at the AFL-CIO convention talking to his friends who he's already bailed out.  Here's a portion of what he said.

OBAMA:  And the fundamental test of this century, of our time, is whether we will heed this lesson, whether we will let America become a nation of the very rich and the very poor, of the haves and the have-nots, or whether we will remain true to the promise of this country and build a future where the success of all of us is built on the success of each of us.  (applause)  That's the future I want to build.  That's the future the AFL-CIO wants to build.

RUSH:  Now, folks, that's straight Marxism and it's not true.  Build a future where the success of all of us is built on the success of each of us?  I mean that's the fundamental test of the century, is spread the wealth around, redistribute the wealth.  But the fact of the matter is your success doesn't depend on anybody else's success!  It doesn't.  This is proven every day in this country.  Your success does not depend on everybody else. It might depend on some others but it doesn't depend on everybody.  We've proven this.  But let's take these words.  "The success of all of us is built on the success of each of us."  He wants to build a nation while his family members live in squalor in a village where water is still delivered by donkey to the thatched roof huts in which they live.  Here's the next sound bite we have from his remarks to the AFL-CIO.

OBAMA:  I refuse to let America go back to the culture of irresponsibility and greed that made it possible.  Back to an economy with soaring CEO salaries and shrinking middle class incomes, back to the days when banks made reckless decisions that hurt Wall Street and main street alike, we're not going to go back to those days.  It would be bad for unions, bad for the middle class, and bad for the United States of America.  We're not turning back.  We're moving forward.

RUSH:  This guy's becoming a laughingstock.  This guy's becoming an insane laughingstock.  He has destroyed the middle class single-handedly.  Do you know what the unemployment rate is?  And it's not Wall Street's fault.  It's Obama's fault, it's Obama's policies' faults.  Unemployment rate is 9.7%, it's headed toward 10%.  None of what he said would happen because of his policies has happened.  And, by the way, this from Reuters:  "Some of the largest US banks will remain caught in the government's financial bailout program for months, as officials do not expect to grant the next wave of exit approvals until near the end of the year." So Obama is publicly sending a message that banks are shedding government help, and yet he won't let 'em get out of the government, he won't let them get back and be independent.  Then he comes out with this nonsense that we're not going to go back to the culture of irresponsibility and greed that made it possible, back to an economy with soaring CEO salaries and shrinking middle class incomes.  He's taking care of both.  Nobody's incomes are going to grow when this guy gets through, nobody's!  This is a dangerous guy, but he's becoming a laughingstock.  Let's listen to even more.

OBAMA:  That's how we'll grow our great American middle class. (woman screaming, "I love you!") I love you, too, sister.  Although it sounds like you been hollering too much.  Your toes all -- (laughing)  We're going to grow our middle class with policies that benefit you, the American worker.

RUSH:  Pray tell how does government do that?  How do you grow the middle class with policies that benefit you?  The only answer to that is you start taxing the achievers and you give it to people like this woman.  "I love you!"  "I love you, too, sister."  And here's the final sound bite, whipping them into a frenzy over health care.

OBAMA:  When are we going to say enough is enough?  How many more workers have to lose their coverage?  How many more families have to go into the red for a sick loved one?  How much longer are we going to have to wait?  It can't wait.  (crowd chanting, "We can't wait.")  We can't wait.  My friends, we have talked this issue to death year after year, decade after decade.  That's why I said last week, before a joint session of Congress, I said the time for bickering is over.  The time for games has passed.  Now is the time for action.  Now is the time to deliver on health insurance reform.

RUSH:  Keep talking, Barack, buddy.  The more you talk, the more the polls go against you.  Keep making speeches like this to your buddies, largely held accountable by the American people for many of the problems that we have here today.  Find a business in trouble and you will find a union involved. 





A Great Idea for Fox News Sunday


A panel of shrinks to discuss the narcissist president.



A Great Idea for Fox News Sunday

September 15, 2009


Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!




RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, Obama is making three speeches today.  He has now booked on Letterman and five Sunday shows.  He's doing every Sunday show but Fox News Sunday.  I kid you not.  Three speeches today, and speaking of the speech today, why is this guy having to whip up support like this with his best supporters who have already been stimulated with stimulus money?  Why is he giving this kind of speech now?  The tone, the need to talk to a union crowd, is he down to just the union kook thugs that will cheer him now?  Does he think he's losing them, too?  There's nothing bipartisan about what he's doing.  I mean this is incredible.  This is like Castro.  I'm not saying this halfheartedly or lackadaisically.  Five television shows this Sunday, Letterman he's booked on, three speeches today.  You know what I would do?  You know what I would do if I were Fox News Sunday?  I would get a shrink. I would go get a psychiatrist.  I'd have a panel of psychiatrists with the topic being, "Why does Obama need to be on television every minute of every day?"  There has never been a president like this.  This need, this hunger to be on television every minute, to be on the cover of every magazine, this is a lust that is sick!  This is like Castro.  

Castro gives five-minute speeches occasionally or five-hour speeches, Obama is doing the same thing today in three different locations, a total of five hours of speeches or what have you to his buddies.  And when you listen to the sound bites we played, a campaign speech to union supporters.  Odd.  Odd speech, odd tone at this point in time.  "We can't wait, the time is now."  And not for four years we're going to implement this, not for four years, we gotta get it done now.  And then the chants coming along.  I mean I'm reminded of things I don't want to mention here, when I hear these crowds.  Five Sunday shows, every one of them but Fox, and Letterman, which, of course, that's going to be a kiss-ass episode.  That's gonna induce vomiting.  All those other Sunday shows are going to be the same thing, they will be vomit-inducing.  People are going to be hurling all over the country on Sunday morning when they watch this garbage.  

And, meanwhile, over on Fox, you know, I'd go out, I'd get Jackie Mason on there and Raoul Felder and a panel of shrinks, a panel of psychiatrists, to analyze why, and clearly state, "Look, we haven't seen the president as a patient, but we are highly trained in the field of neuropsychosis.  And we do want to endeavor to explain here just why this man has this unquenchable thirst and lust to be on television all the time."  Especially why he has to do this when it's known that the more he's on TV the worse his numbers get.  You know, as a subtopic I'd have the shrinks explore also why it is that Obama refuses to help his family living in a village where water is still delivered on donkey back.  His family has been waiting for money since 2004.  He's taking money from everybody else and giving it to everybody else, but not to his family, the brother George Obango Onyango Obama living in the hut, six by nine.  He hasn't even sent a sign, "Hut, Sweet Hut."  


RUSH: Anyway, that's my idea.  That's what I think Fox ought to do.  I would love to be on Fox this Sunday -- and  I'm going to be in Washington, but I can't do the show, and I'm not a psychiatrist anyway, although I could explain.






ABC's Charlie Gibson Claims He Hasn't Heard of ACORN Scandal


The ABC News anchor is this clueless? Maybe not.

ABC's Charlie Gibson Claims He Hasn't Heard of ACORN Scandal

September 15, 2009


Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 
Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!




RUSH:  All right, let's get to ACORN.  There are developments and updates regarding ACORN.  This first, this is such a telling sound bite, this just says it all.  It happened on our 50,000-watt affiliate in Chicago, WLS, The Big 89 this morning with Don Wade and Roma, and I guess they have a regular scheduled Tuesday morning interview with Charles Gibson, the anchor of World News Tonight.  And Don Wade of WLS Chicago, The Big 89, says to Charlie Gibson, "Senate bill yesterday passes, cutting off funds to this group ACORN.  Now we got the bill passing, we got the embarrassing video of ACORN staff giving tax advice on how to set up a brothel."   You know these ACORN people are better than H&R Block?  I mean there's a great piece here, folks.  Where is this?  Oh, it's at Big Hollywood, Breitbart site, Leigh Scott.  All these fired ACORN babes, he wants to hire them to do his taxes.  These babes have shown how to evade taxes, how to get away from the IRS. This guy says these women could make more than they could ever make at ACORN by being hired by big corporations or individuals to do their tax returns.  These women at ACORN could put H&R Block out of business.  So anyway, back to Don Wade and Roma, WLS, The Big 89 Chicago, talking to Charlie Gibson, "We got this embarrassing video of ACORN staff giving tax advice, how to set up a brothel with 13-year-old hookers. It has everything you would want, corruption, sleazy action, tax-funded organizations, government ties, but nobody's covering the story, Charlie.  Why?"

GIBSON:  (laughing) I don't even know about it.  So you've got me at a loss, I don't know.  But my goodness if it's got everything including sleaziness in it we should talk about it this morning.

ROMA:  Well, I think that this is a huge issue because there's so much funding that goes into this organization. It's a multi--

GIBSON:  I know we've done some stories about ACORN before, but this one I don't know about.

ROMA:  Jake Tapper about some blogging on it.  I know he's at least blogged once on this scandal.

GIBSON:  You guys are -- you guys are really up on the -- on the website.

RUSH:  This is only the anchor of ABC's World News Tonight.  The ACORN story is a week old.  There are videos, there are now three places -- Baltimore, Washington, and Brooklyn -- where the ACORN operation has been exposed for what it is.  And you know what it really is?  You know what these ACORN people really are?  This guy Leigh Scott at makes a point.  They are superb capitalists.  They're out gaming the system for themselves. They're looking at capitalism, how it works and how to get themselves involved in it. I mean, they have a leftist agenda obviously but they're not going about their organization in a socialist way, all this advice is kind of interesting in a way, but here's Charlie Gibson, Charlie Gibson, the anchor at ABC's World News Tonight publicly admitting on WLS Chicago, The Big 89, that this is the first he's heard of it, and you know why? Because it's the New York Times every morning that sets the agenda for the evening newscasts.  It's been that way since Walter Cronkite, and ACORN has not been a story.  

If it's not in the New York Times I'm telling you these elite leftists don't know about it.  This is incredible.  He hadn't heard about it, he's laughing about it.  He hasn't heard anything about the story.  This is a guy, he claims in his interviews with Sarah Palin, claims to be far more intelligent, far more informed, far more sophisticated -- yeah.  I find this laughable.  He didn't even know about it and you ought to see the looks on the people on the other side of the glass here in my sprawling studio complex.  They're all shocked.  I'm not shocked.  This is the Drive-By Media we're talking about.  We're talking about the most closed-minded, ignorant, if it's not in their worldview they don't know about it and they specifically tune it out.  I'm not surprised.  Look, you've got to watch Fox to see the video or look at the Internet and I'm not sure that Charlie is computer literate.  A lot of people Charlie's age just never got into computers.  He might still be using an IBM to type up his news stories.  Who knows? (interruption) What front page?  There hasn't been anything on ACORN on the front page, that's the whole point, the State-Controlled Media hasn't covered it.  

In all the news sources that Charlie Gibson thinks are the news, it hasn't been covered.  And of course they don't watch Fox, and they don't watch YouTube videos.  Their producers do all the news gathering.  The producers, editors, and writers do all the news.  Charlie Gibson, managing editor, it's all a schmo.  The whole thing is nothing but a giant PR thing to show us how worldly, important, and involved these anchors are.  They've traveled the world, they've seen the wretches, they have seen the best, they have seen the worst, their lives have been personally touched by all the horrors and they don't know diddly-squat about what's happening in their own country.  This is why I've always joked they need a visa to get into Missouri.  To them it's a foreign country.  Brooklyn's a foreign country, for crying out loud, the latest ACORN office to get busted.  Now, these ACORN babes, you stop and look at it, this brilliant tax advice. It may be illegal but they're telling people how to set up brothels and get these underage whores to be called dependents and so forth, illegally in the country and so forth.  Now, folks, I thought it was only elitist rich people who knew how to evade taxes, but this is shedding all kinds of light.  Here we have these agents for the poor who are probably better at helping people cheat on their taxes than the best tax lawyer working at GE.


RUSH:  Did you hear Charlie Gibson say to Don Wade and Roma at WLS, The Big 89 in Chicago, "You guys are really up on those web pages. You guys are really up on our web pages."  Now, folks, just being fair here, we have to consider the possibility that Charlie is not being totally honest about not knowing about the story.  It may just be a cover.  It looks bad saying you don't know about it, but it does explain why you haven't done it, that means nobody at ABC knows about it.




RUSH: You gotta hear it again. This morning on WLS, The Big 89 in Chicago, Don Wade and Roma asked Charlie Gibson about ACORN.  

(replaying of sound bite)  

Now, Charlie Gibson is either pleading ignorance, incompetence, instead of bias.  He's claiming he doesn't know about this.  Now, let's examine this.  The top news guy at ABC -- this is the anchor for World News Tonight -- did not know about ACORN, which means he didn't know that the Census Bureau kicked ACORN out of the operation.  That has been news.  Did they not cover that, either, at ABC?  And Charlie Gibson didn't know that the Senate voted to stop all payments to ACORN.  Why?  Why did Charlie Gibson not know these things?  Is he too busy tracking the day-to-day activities of Sarah Palin with his reading glasses halfway down his nose?  Remember that arrogant, condescending interview he did with Sarah Palin?  He must be too busy tracking her daily movements here as a private citizen to be aware of what's happening in the country.  

Do we really believe he didn't know?  Do we really believe his plea of ignorance rather than bias?  "Boy, you guys are really up on the Web page."  I, frankly, think that Roma here was quite restrained.  If I had been talking to Charlie Gibson, and he told me he didn't know about that, I would have been incredulous.  But ABC's Citadel is somewhat still in the family.  Now, from's Mike Roman: "Last week, we saw some pretty disturbing activities revealed in the undercover footage from ACORN Housing's Baltimore office. By any measure of conduct, the actions of ACORN’s employees should never have happened. It turns out the actions shouldn’t have happened for another, very simple, reason: ACORN can’t legally operate in the state of Maryland."  By the way, this is Obama's America, and I have to tell you, ACORN is Obama.  Obama is ACORN.  

Just like Van Jones is Obama.  Obama trained ACORN people back in the eighties when he was community organizing.  He trained them. He had a big meeting with them during the transition period. "We're going to be involved in every one of you putting together the agenda for the next presidency of the United States." He had a meeting with ACORN. He is ACORN.  You cannot separate the two.  

Now, "According to the following documents," that are attached here to the story, "ACORN, Inc. -- the parent organization of all things ACORN," and they got 300 or so different organizations with different names, and then there's all ACORN International.  ACORN is freaking everywhere.  But according to the documents attached to the story here,

ACORN, Inc., "forfeited its corporate charter in Maryland in 2006. ACORN Housing forfeited its corporate charter in 2008. Any ACORN office in the state of Maryland is potentially operating illegally. The Maryland Attorney General has made noise about prosecuting the intrepid journalists who undercovered [sic] the misdeeds of ACORN employees. Perhaps he should focus instead on how ACORN was able to operate without a license in his state." Yesterday "Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) introduced an amendment to the HUD and Transportation appropriation bill to strip ACORN of all federal funding.  A week ago, Johanns wouldn't have gotten the amendment to the floor." Ed Morrissey points this out at "Today, however, after three straight days of's video exposes of ACORN offices in Washington DC, New York City, and Baltimore ... he got an impressive bipartisan showing.  The Senate passed the Johanns amendment 83-7."

Charlie Gibson didn't know this!  The senators knew. The senators knew all about it, but Charlie Gibson at ABC World News tonight didn't know any of this had happened.  Here are the seven who voted for continuing funding, federal funding of ACORN: "Dick Durbin (D-IL), Roland Burris (D-IL), Robert Casey (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)." So as Ed Morrissey humorously observes: "So can we assume that Illinois and Vermont are especially sympathetic to child-whoring pimp assistance?" These seven people voted to maintain.  Now, "Today House Republicans will introduce a bill that would end all federal funding to ACORN and its affiliates. Republicans are also sending a letter to President Obama on the same subject" since he is ACORN.

"The action comes after the release" of these videos and the action in the Senate yesterday.  "House Republicans point out that they have long pushed for a cutoff in government funding for ACORN. Republican leader John Boehner last year sent a letter to President Bush asking for the defunding of ACORN. There is already Republican legislation calling for the total cutoff of Housing and Urban Development Department funds to ACORN, and Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, took a leading role in pushing for the Census Bureau decision." ACORN's out there, supposedly (I'll believe all this when I see it) and now defunded in the Senate but of course that has to also happen in the House.  In the meantime -- and I say to this: Bring it on, baby! Bring it on!  



"Facing intensifying scrutiny after the release of several disturbing hidden camera videos...ACORN, is threatening to sue Fox News, the website and the two conservative activists who produced the exposes." Bring it on, sue 'em!  Why did you fire the employees if this is all trumped up and phony?  "A lawyer for ACORN said Monday that statutes in Maryland and the District of Columbia made the undercover filming illegal and that the same laws should prohibit the rebroadcast of the tapes by the website, where they were first posted last week, and on Fox News... 'It is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist "filmmaker" O'Keefe...'"  Mr. O'Keefe stop calling yourself an "activist;" Call yourself a journalist from now on.

You've gotta stop calling yourself a journalist, and then you can do all you want. You're just 60 Minutes 2009.  60 Minutes is now "60 Minutes with Obama" anyway. 60 Minutes has ceded what was the role that put them on the map.  So Mr. O'Keefe, call yourself a journalist; get rid of this activist business and the world will open up to you.  So I want to see this lawsuit.  Bring it on.  Because they fired the employees.  Now, here's Leigh Scott,  "I just found out that the two women featured on the undercover ACORN video posted on our sister site Big Government were fired by the community organizing group.  This is really good news.  First, it proves that the ridiculously funny and unbelievable video is real.  

"At first glance, it's so over-the-top that one assumes it must be fake.  Now, we have the proof that these women really were ACORN employees and not the most talented improv actors to ever live.  Secondly, it means that these two women are now unemployed. And I want to hire them immediately. These women can navigate the tax code so well that they managed to gin up dependent child tax credits for underage El Salvadorian prostitutes.  They provided detailed instructions on how to obtain a low interest, government subsidized mortgage for a [whorehouse].  They gave clever insight into laundering a pimp's take of prostitute earnings into a campaign account for a would be Democratic politician.  

"I look at them, as an independent film producer, and think; 'must hire.'  With these two on my side, imagine what I could accomplish.  My tax credit revenue would triple.  My financing schemes would abandon foreign pre-sales and network television deals and embrace government grants and subsidies.  Bureaucratic and confusing union paperwork would dissolve in their capable hands.  At the end of the first show, SAG and IATSE [the unions out there] would owe me money.  Ladies, whatever ACORN was paying, I'll double it!  And I'll give you gross points.  Joking aside ... this little video tells us a lot.  It's not simply that ACORN is a corrupt and shady organization ... we already knew that.  That's no more a revelation than the fact that Lindsay Lohan has some issues with [adult beverages].  

"No, it shows us that the default mode of human nature is capitalism.  There is no way around it.  These women were supposedly working to benefit their community.  A noble and selfless pursuit.  What they were really adept at is gaming the system.  Just like an independent, scrappy filmmaker.  At the root of Communism and Socialism is the undeniable truth that there is always someone at the top.  Capitalism rewards ingenuity, smarts and hard work.  Socialism rewards cronyism, manipulation and collective thought.  If the politicians in Washington really believed that we should all 'pitch in' as their policies dictate, why wouldn't those millionaires donate their federal salaries to charity?  If they were really true believers they would live like monks, sleeping in their office and shopping at Goodwill.  

"Instead, they're eating Kobe steaks and buying ... jets!  Get real.  I've always been baffled by the fact that people who rabidly embrace Darwinism over Christian Doctrine don't see Natural Selection at work in the political, economic and social realms. That seems backwards to me. Shouldn't the followers of Jesus, not Darwin, be the ones who push for all of us to be 'our brother's keepers?' I can understand how Christians can interpret their beliefs to gel with Ben Franklin's 'God helps those who help themselves,' but I can't for the life of me figure out how 'people of science and reason' have adopted the belief system that they have.  Communism and Socialism fly in the face of natural law.  All that I can conclude is that the Socialists and Communists have selected their ideology as a means to consolidate power and money."  

"It's a way of getting money and power without having to be ingenious, without having to be entrepreneurial, and without having to get a job, for crying out loud!  You just freaking "fund-raise," or you live on federal grants.  "They are averse to hard work and true entrepreneurialism and have found a shortcut to wealth and control.  Communism is Capitalism for schemers.  ACORN," in their own little universe, "is no different than AIG." Both exist to game the system while pretending to do something else. "As a side note," the writer says, "I would like to further commend the two women in the video.  We 'typical white folks' get a sort of racist vibe from the whole ACORN thing, so I applaud those two African-American women for their treatment of the Caucasian pimp and his ho.  I can only hope that white ACORN workers show the same respect for all the black hustlers and trick-turners who seek their assistance.  So ladies, consider me impressed.  From one Capitalist to another, ready to work the system to our benefit, please consider my offer."  I need your tax expertise. 




RUSH:  You know this disease that Charlie Gibson has, he didn't know about the ACORN story.  Last Friday, Robert Gibbs, the most competent, I mean the best press secretary the White House ever had, country's ever had, was asked what he thought of the upcoming rally on Saturday.  And Gibbs said last Friday that the White House was unaware of the rally.  He didn't know who the group was.  Gibbs, it isn't a group.  They are the American people that showed up protesting you and your administration and your policies.  Gibson didn't know about ACORN, and Gibbs didn't know about the rally last Saturday.  






Malkin: Charlie Gibson and the Ostrich Media
Roman: ACORN Illegally Operating in MD
Scott: Ladies of ACORN Video, I Will Hire You
Morrissey: Pimp Assistance Seven Identified