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
approach includes a requirement for individuals to buy insurance, with
financial penalties for those who don't.
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.
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,
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
residents who remain uninsured despite a state law requiring residents to have
"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
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.
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. http://www.allmilitary.com/members/mconnelly.html
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
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.
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.
Thousands of schoolgirls have suffered suspected
adverse reactions to a controversial cervical cancer vaccine introduced by
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
Others suffered nausea, muscle weakness, dizziness and
blurred vision, according to a special report drawn up by drug safety
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 immunisationprogramme 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
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
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
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
She has now been diagnosed with a brain injury, caused by
inflammation of the brain, and is being treated in an NHS rehabilitation unit
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
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
"The symptoms this girl has experienced are clearly
upsetting and it is understandable that the girl and her parents want to
uncover the cause."
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
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: "GuadalupeCounty 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 GuillainBarresyndrome 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
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!!
They Called Us
Astroturf, Nazis, Terrorists...Now It Is Racists!! By Rene
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
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];
according to his needs[as the government sees fit]."
We see in Obama an individual on a mission of destroying
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"...to 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
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 Flag@WhiteHouse.gov? 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, "...to
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
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 (email@example.com)
Tue 9/15/09 11:26 PM
OBAMACARE: Ending the
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!
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
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
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
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
The sanctimonious shock at South Carolina Rep. Joe
Wilson's calling out,
"You lie," when Barack Obama said the health-care bill will not
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,
plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." Anyone who
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
essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the
the plan that I propose."
Obama also stated: "We're going to set up a public plan that all persons
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
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
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
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
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
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
out of Medicare "waste and inefficiency," which can't be done
Other lies in Obama's speech included his claim that the health-care plan
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
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
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."
"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
makes me sick." "I'm not your ATM." "Nurses Against Obamacare." "Abortion
is not health care." "Undocumented worker" (under picture of
"Congress pack your bags; you're going home in
2010." "If you're not
outraged, you're not paying taxes." "Read the bill."
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,
"I had enough socialism in the USSR."
WilliamsTuesday, 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
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 WashingtonDC 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 country!
So it is in this story…
On September 10, 2009, I released
a column that created a firestorm across the nation.
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
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
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!
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 only.
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.
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. falsefalsefalseMicrosoftInternetExplorer4
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
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
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, Hawaii.
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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.
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
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
"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
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
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
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
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would
raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
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
“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
“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.”
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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.”
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:
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.”
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.”
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’sMuscle for Money program & the
H&R Block shakedown, and ACORN’s gala
for Democrats in New York in June to celebrate its 39th
alas, will learn none of this from reading its story today about ACORN, which
ends this way:
A “sting”-ing indictment of media hypocrisy
by Michelle Malkin Creators
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.
documentarian James O’Keefe and writer Hannah Giles, working for the BigGovernment.com
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.”
the ACORN Housing Corporation philosophy, another Brooklyn ACORN official told
the undercover pair bluntly: “Honesty is not going to get you the house.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 SidwellFriendsSchool,
forking over $28,000 a year for each girl. Whilst senator from Illinois, the Obamas enrolled
their girls in the University of Chicago's LaboratorySchool, 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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 ObangoOnyango Obama living
in the hut, six by nine. He hasn't even sent a sign, "Hut, Sweet
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
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.
(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
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
http://BigHollywood.Breitbart.com 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
(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 BigGovernment.com'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 BigGovernment.com 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 Hotair.com. "Today, however, after three straight days of BigGovernment.com's video exposes of ACORN offices
New York City, and Baltimore ... he got an impressive
bipartisan showing. The Senate passed the Johanns
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!
intensifying scrutiny after the release of several disturbing hidden
camera videos...ACORN, is threatening to sue Fox News, the website
Breitbart.com 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 BigGovernment.com, 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,
http://BigHollywood.Breitbart.com. "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
"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
"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