The Incredible Arrogance Of An Obamunist Masquerading As A Rep Of The Chamber Of Commerce - Democrats Dying To Kill Us With Obamacare - ACORN Watch: Fight The Thugs – Muslim Dem Rep Ignores Teachings Of Quran – Obama Officials Love Mass Murderer Mao - Cap And Trade For Babies: One Child Policy Coming To USA?

 

 

 

 

Watch the incredible arrogance of an Obamunist masquerading as a rep of the Chamber of Commerce! - Gary L. Morella

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYGcIhNGSIY&feature=player_embedded

 

 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125110.guest.html

Press Falls for Yet Another Hoax

October 20, 2009

 

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

 

RUSH: Do you remember the story yesterday we had about how Reuters, CNN, the Washington Post, and New York Times fell for a hoax?  Yesterday we thought that it was just an e-mail hoax that they fell for.  The hoax was perpetrated by some group that as a practice perpetrates hoaxes on the media. (interruption) Is that the name of the group?  Yes Men.  And they sent an e-mail out claiming that they were the Chamber of Commerce, that they had done a 180 and Chamber of Commerce was now ready to join Obama on cap and trade, and it was false. It was a total hoax.  They didn't check it; they didn't backtrack it; they didn't track it down; they didn't source it; they just accepted the e-mail.  Folks, we learn today it's even worse.  They had a press conference.  The hoax group had a press conference.  Yesterday in Washington, the National Press Club, US Chamber of Commerce Director of Communications Eric Wohlschlegel interrupted a fake press conference being held by a man calling himself Hingo Sembra, purportedly with the Chamber.  You'll also hear an unidentified reporter in this bit.  

WOHLSCHLEGEL:  I'm with the US Chamber of Commerce.  This is not an official US Chamber of Commerce event, so I don't know under what pretenses you're here.  I know some of you in the press world, but this is a fraudulent press activity and a stunt.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN:  Who are you really, sir?

WOHLSCHLEGEL:  So, if you have any questions, you're welcome to direct them to me at the US Chamber of Commerce.  This guy does not represent the US Chamber of Commerce.  

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER:  Can we finish?

WOHLSCHLEGEL:  No.  This is not an official Chamber of Commerce -- this is not --

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER:  I'm on a deadline.

WOHLSCHLEGEL:  Yeah.  Got it.  So they're misrepresenting the US Chamber of Commerce.

SEMBRA:  Sir, if you want to have a --

WOHLSCHLEGEL:  If anyone has any questions, you want to talk to the real Chamber of Commerce, they can direct -- direct your questions to me.

RUSH:  Can I translate this for you here?  There's a fake press conference from somebody claiming to be from the US Chamber of Commerce and they're not.  The real Chamber of Commerce communications director shows up and says, "This guy is not who he says he is, he doesn't represent the Chamber, I do."  The reporter says, "Shut up, we got a deadline, I need to finish asking this guy questions."  Unidentified reporters wanted to continue talking to the hoaxer.  Unidentified reporters wanted proof from the Chamber of Commerce guy that he was the real Chamber of Commerce guy.  This is amazing.  They're in the middle of being hoaxed and they want to continue to fall for the hoax because the hoaxer is telling them what they want to hear.  The hoaxer is saying, "I'm from the Chamber and we have turned around, we're going to support cap and trade."  That's what the media wanted to hear in the press conference.  The real Chamber of Commerce guy, "This is a fraud, this guy is not speaking for the Chamber of Commerce.  If you want to know anything about it, talk to me."  "Well, wait a minute, shut up, I'm on a deadline here, I want to finish my questions to the guy."

Once again words escape me.  Words escape me.  I know this is funny, and I know it's hilarious, but it has horrible portends.  In just a matter of a week we have seen mainstream media accept total lies, total fabricated quotes made up about me.  Now we see mainstream media preferring to talk to a hoax leader of the Chamber of Commerce, a hoaxer, rather than talk to the real communications director of the Chamber of Commerce.  And this is in the midst of Len Downie saying, "Oh, we're in trouble here in the news business," and the New York Times laying off a hundred more people in the newsroom -- that's 200 people, by the way, in the last year -- "oh, we're in big trouble here in the news business, we need to go nonprofit, we can't earn a profit."  I wonder why the hell that might be, Mr. Downie.  It's because your business is now populated with a bunch of idiot boob fools.  Holy smokes, folks, it's just mind-blowing.

 

 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Doug in Tucson, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.  Hello, sir.

CALLER:  Rush, it's an absolute honor.

RUSH:  Thank you.

CALLER:  You betcha. Hey, this whole bit about the news and why the news is losing money these days? It's not news; it's propaganda.  Outright government propaganda and people just simply aren't going to pay for the lies, misrepresentation, and fraud.  The whole thing --

RUSH:  Let me ask you a question, then.  Let's use the New York Times as an example.  New York City has eight million people, about 7.9 million of them liberal.  How in the world can the New York Times' journalism be disappointing the liberal Mecca of this country?  I'm not... It's just a think piece.  I just want your thoughts on this.  I can understand where you live in Tucson you're going to have a much greater cross section of conservatives and liberals and so if the conservatives get fed up with the liberalism of the Tucson papers, bam! You're going to and so are a lot of other people. But I don't know that people are not buying the New York Times because it's not liberal enough or because it's too liberal or because it's not anti-conservative enough.  I don't know. You tell me.

CALLER:  I'll tell you easily.  It's a matter of slant.  Slant is a way and perspective of seeing things, and it is a matter of them being able to listen to the propaganda they want to hear.

RUSH:  Have you ever read the letters...?

CALLER: (unintelligible)

RUSH: Have you ever...?

CALLER: (unintelligible)

RUSH: Wait a minute.  Have you ever read letters to the editor of the New York Times?  

CALLER:  Oh, yes, definitely.

RUSH:  Well, every damn one of them is far more radical, wacko, and leftist than the people who work there!

CALLER:  Heh, heh. Absolutely.

RUSH:  They love the slant of the New York Times, whatever it is -- editorial page front page, no difference any more -- and yet the New York Times is losing circulation.  And the New York Times is losing advertising revenue.  Now, also this Little Pinch went out and spent a lot of New York Times money building a monument to himself, the new Times building. They've got some debt problems there and they invested in the Boston Red Sox a little bit and they bought the Boston Globe. But I don't know that the Times is in trouble because of its content because 99% of its market loves its content. So there's gotta be something else going on with the Times: Bad business decisions, operating decisions and so forth. 

 

 

END TRANSCRIPT

 

Read the Background Material...

 

FOXNews: Chamber of Commerce Says Statement Announcing Support for Climate Bill a Hoax
MediaBistro: Will the Real Chamber of Commerce Please Stand Up?
Politico: Chamber Victimized by Climate Hoax

 

 

White House Finds a New Enemy

Chamber of Commerce's opposition to health, climate change bills triggers all-fronts administration backlash

White House Targets Chamber of Commerce Over Opposition to Reform Plans

The Obama administration is trying to neutralize the Chamber of Commerce by doing an end-run around the group and dealing directly with its members. 

 

Krauthammer On Obama Vs. Chamber Of Commerce

 

 

 

AUDIONETDAILY
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Reid, Schumer, Kerry shield own states from Obamacare 
GOP's Shadegg: Senators flexing muscles to defray costs of health-care overhaul
--WND

Rasmussen: 54% oppose Obama's health-care plan
Just 36% of nation's senior citizens favor current legislative effort
--Rasmussen Report

 

Don Feder: Democrats Dying to Kill Us With Obama-Care

From:

 GrassTopsUSA (Christopher@grasstopsusa-info.com)

Sent:

Tue 10/20/09 9:32 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Wage Web Warfare Against The Liberal Establishment:Sign Up For The GrassTopsUSA Action Alert And Get The Latest News And  Hard-Hitting Commentaries Delivered Straight To Your Inbox.

 

Democrats Dying to Kill Us With Obama-Care
A Speech by Don Feder at the Tea Party Rally on the Boston Common: October 17, 2009
10-20-09

        The left has always wanted to exercise absolute control over the lives of the American people – mind you, for our own good.

        It wants to control what we think, through public education, Hollywood and its trained-poodle news media. It wants to dispose of our property, through confiscatory taxation. It wants to raise our children, run our businesses, and plan our retirement.

        But now, with Obama-care, it’s reaching for the gold ring – the power to decide who lives and dies, the power to play God.

        If you’re elderly and ailing, if you’re young and disabled, if you require special treatment, if it deems your quality of life low or your social utility wanting, the left is dying to kill you. If Congress and this administration have their way, it will have that power very soon.

        I’m talking about the rationing of medical services – the inevitable consequence of Obama-care. It’s not just that the politicians will be driven to it. If our health care system is nationalized, they will welcome it.

        I’m not going to raise the specter of death panels, or speak to you about “comparative effectiveness,” or Section 1232 of the House health-care bill, which requires “end-of-life counseling” for Medicare patients every five years – and more often if they’re terminally ill.

        I will not describe how socialized medicine has worked in the United Kingdom or Canada. In Britain, beyond a certain age, if you need a hip-replacement or cataract surgery – tough. The Canadians already have what Obama wants for America. So why are they coming here for life-saving operations? Why aren’t we going there?

        No one knows the contours of the final abomination the House and Senate will vote on – perhaps in a matter of days. And the Democrats won’t let us see it in advance.

        You know what? It doesn’t matter. If you want to see the shape of things to come, listen to the voices emanating from the shriveled heart of the Party of Plunder.

        The Democrat Party increasingly resembles a wholly-owned subsidiary of billionaire George Soros, who funneled $25 million into its coffers in the 2003/2004 election cycle alone.

        In a 1994 speech, America’s most prominent proponent of doctor-assisted suicide rhetorically asked: “Can we really afford to care for the dying properly? The number of people dying in the United States currently stands at 2.2 million annually. Increases in cancer and AIDS and the aging of the Baby-Boomers will cause this figure to climb faster than the population… (But) aggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.” Well, beat me with a euphemism!

        What’s “proper care for the dying”? Certainly, nothing that costs much – as far as the architects of Obama-care are concerned. Not a ventilator, not a feeding tube, not CPR – just enough drugs to keep them quiet.

        Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is health-policy advisor to the Office of Budget and Management, and brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, who once disclosed, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

        Dr. Emmanuel says that in health-care reform (so-called), “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control for show and public relations than for true change.” At last, an honest Democrat.

        The good doctor believes medical care should not be wasted on those who are “irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” As an example, he cites patients with dementia. Well, they could always run for Congress in Massachusetts.

        What about patients with terminal cancer or the 66-year-old who’s suffered a massive stroke or a severe heart-attack? On the other end of the life spectrum, what about severely disabled children or those with Downs syndrome? Will they be judged incapable of becoming “participating citizens” and assigned to an institution, there to receive minimal care till they die?

        By the way, among the things Dr. Emanuel cites as medical luxuries are private rooms in hospitals, physicians offices “conveniently located” with nearby parking, and “attractive waiting rooms.” What about Band-Aids, aspirin and eye-drops?

        Then there’s Robert Reich, Clinton’s Labor Secretary. In a 2007 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Reich told his audience he would speak to them as if he was an honest candidate who “did not care about becoming president.”

        Regarding health care reform, his message would be, “particularly to you young, healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more. And by the way, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life…It’s too expensive… so we’re going to let you die.” Here’s a really honest Democrat.

        Reich continued: “Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government… to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents.” How about as long as your parents – or grandparents?

        And now for a word – or two – from a really, really honest Democrat.

        Writing in The Huffington Post (The Daily Worker was less dogmatic), on September 24, former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, a senior statesman of the Democratic Party, patiently explained to dolts like you and me: “No modern society can afford to give each of its citizens all the health care that is ‘beneficial.’ The health care system can no more afford to do everything ‘beneficial’ for every patient than the education system (BTW, another government-run disaster) can do everything ‘beneficial’ for every student.... We are delivering and the public is expecting more medicine than we can possibly afford to maintain.”

        We can’t afford to give citizens? We are delivering more medicine than we can possibly afford? We’re not going to give you? Reserved for “participating citizens”?

        We used to live in a country called “America.” It was a place where politicians and bureaucrats didn’t tell us what we could and couldn’t have when it came to medical care. If we could afford it, we paid for it. If we couldn’t, there was always welfare or charity to help out.

        Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, just down the road in Concord, “their flags to April’s breeze unfurled,” once “the embattled farmers stood: And fired the shot heard round the world.” If they were alive today, you can probably guess where they’d be pointing their muskets.

        In 1984, Lamm gave an unexpurgated version of his Huffington Post column, when he told the Colorado Health Lawyers Association: “Like leaves falling off a tree forming the humus in which other plants can grow, we’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts, so that our kids can build a better life” – or, in the words of another Democratic theorist, let them die and “decrease the surplus population” I think Obama has found his first health insurance czar.

        Here’s the bottom-line of Obama-care. Take an 85-year-old man who fought for his country in World War II or Korea, who paid taxes and obeyed the law all of his life, who built a home and raised children who in turn grew up to become productive citizens, and who started a business that eventually employed dozens or even thousands of people.

        He doesn’t get end-of-life treatment, so those resources can be redirected to illegal aliens and taxpayer-funded abortion. He’s given a few drugs to die on quickly and quietly, so Nancy Pelosi can have her Botox treatments and Rosie O’Donnell will get liposuction.

        If you’re a liberal (excuse me, a “progressive”) rationing is the answer to your prayers. Not only will it save money on end-of-life care by letting the elderly die quickly, it will also avert a coming demographic crisis for Social Security and Medicare, with the worker/beneficiary ratio constantly shrinking and the proverbial trust fund a myth.

        Do you think that those who are pushing the Freedom of Choice Act – who want to eliminate any restrains on abortion – and who let Terri Schiavo die of dehydration – do you think they will really have any qualms about pulling the plug on Granny?

        What then must we do? What is our assignment?

        You who have gathered here today are the Minutemen. You are the soldiers of the Continental Army leaving bloody footprints in the snow during Washington’s retreat across New Jersey in December of 1776. You are the 5th Corps of the 20th Maine Infantry charging the Confederate lines at Gettysburg. You are the Doughboys of the Argonne. You are the boys of Easy Company dropping behind enemy lines on D-Day.

        But what can we do, you ask? The party of death controls the White House, has super-majorities in Congress and owns the media (news and entertainment).

        I’ll tell you what you can do: You can take to heart the words of Winston Churchill to the students of Harrow School in 1941: “Never give in – never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty… . Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

        And you can draw strength from the last stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner: “Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto:
‘In God is our trust.’ And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free (Do you hear that, Mr. Obama, ‘the land of the free’?) and the home of the brave!”

        Thank you and God bless you.

 

 

ACORN Watch: Fight the thugs

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 20, 2009 05:34 PM


Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti

ACORN is a criminal enterprise. It took decades to build up its massive coffers and intricate web of affiliates across the country.

It will take months and years to untangle the entire operation.

And it will take time, money, and and relentless sunshine to dismantle the government-subsidized, partisan racket. It can’t be “reformed.” It is constitutionally corrupt.

The sworn testimony, research, and blogging by former ACORN/Project Vote development associate Anita MonCrief has provided an invaluable amount of fodder for reporters (before their editors “cut bait,” that is) and congressional investigators trying to get to the bottom of ACORN’s tax law-undermining, campaign finance disclosure-evading ways. Most recently, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported this week on how ACORN’s voter drives in Ohio were planned specifically to help Democrat congressional candidates.

The reward for MonCrief’s truth-telling? An intimidation lawsuit to shut her up.

Yesterday, MonCrief’s lawyers filed an answer to the ACORN/Project Vote lawsuit and counterclaims against the racket for its frivolous and bullying attempt to silence her. There is also a new website to help with her legal defense fund here.

These are the legal documents in PDF form:

*Answer to the lawsuit

*Counterclaim

*Motion to Dismiss

*Motion to Dismiss brief

MonCrief’s team has exposed the ACORN/Project Vote alliance’s joint and inseparable speech-stifling tactics and laid bare the legal chicanery. Pay attention. This is what ACORN’s worst enemies have to look forward to — and they will all need support to beat the silencers back. From the counterclaim:

Facts

10. MonCrief was a Project Vote employee and served as a Development Associate from October 2005 until January 11, 2008.

11. Project Vote is one of many affiliate entities controlled by ACORN. Together, many of these entities are referred to as the COUNCIL of organizations.

12. There is overlap and exchange of employees and officers between ACORN and Project Vote. Many employees of Project Vote simultaneously serve as staff members of ACORN and/or other affiliated organizations of ACORN.

13. Before she began working at Project Vote, MonCrief believed she was applying for a staff position with ACORN. She sent her resume to an ACORN employee, at an ACORN email address, and interviewed with an ACORN official. She was subsequently offered a job in the political operations department of ACORN. However, upon arriving at the ACORN office for her first day of work, MonCrief was informed that a decision had been made to have her employed instead by an organization called Project Vote.

14. On information and belief, the decision to hire MonCrief at Project Vote was made by ACORN.

15. Moreover, while serving as a Development Associate at Project Vote, MonCrief was simultaneously considered to be a member of the “political operations” staff of ACORN. At the outset of her employment with Project Vote MonCrief was issued an ACORN email address (polnatdev2@acorn.org). It was not until July of 2007 that MonCrief was given a Project Vote email address (devassociate@projectvote.org) as well.

16. ACORN and Project Vote share office space in both Louisiana and Washington, D.C.

17. Citizens Consulting, Inc. (“CCI”) which like Project Vote is an affiliated entity of ACORN and member of the COUNCIL, handles all accounting, payroll, and other administrative matters for both ACORN and Project Vote.

18. On information and belief, ACORN has controlled Project Vote’s financial transactions.

19. On information and belief, ACORN has controlled the accounting for and receipt of contributions at Project Vote.

20. On information and belief, ACORN has controlled the authorization of and allocation of Project Vote expenditures.

21. On information and belief, ACORN and Project Vote have regularly engaged in transactions, financial and other, which are not conducted at arms-length.

22. On information and belief, both Project Vote and ACORN have failed to maintain proper corporate formalities, including failing to take and\or record minutes, and board meetings have been infrequently held.

23. Project Vote is, or has been at times relevant to this lawsuit, operated as a mere division of ACORN.

24. Beginning in the summer of 2008 and continuing through the present, MonCrief has engaged in an effort to shed light on unethical, inappropriate, and potentially illegal activities conducted by both Project Vote and ACORN while MonCrief was an employee of Project Vote.

25. MonCrief initially attempted to contact members of the press, including Stephanie Strom of the New York Times, to share her information. MonCrief participated in ongoing discussions with Strom, contributing information that Strom used in various ACORN exposes during 2008. However, just weeks before the 2008 presidential elections, Strom told MonCrief that her editors had asked her not to follow up on or print damaging information
regarding ACORN due to its potentially deleterious effects (Strom used the term “game- changer”) on the electoral success of then-candidate Barack Obama.

26. MonCrief, also a supporter of Barack Obama, nonetheless persisted in her efforts to bring her information to the public. She created a personal blog for herself in November of 2008 (http://anitamoncrief.blogspot.com) and began regularly posting entries to that blog.

27. MonCrief’s blog posts primarily contain political speech about current events, issues, candidates, public figures, and organizations. They also include personal, biographical reflections. Many of MonCrief’s blog posts have been critical of what she viewed as unethical, inappropriate, and potentially illegal activities on the part of Project Vote and ACORN, as well as other ACORN affiliated entities such as Citizen Services, Inc.
(“CSI”), and CCI.

28. MonCrief also published many of her blog posts on other websites such as Blog Town Hall (http://anitamoncrief.blogtownhall.com), The Next Right (http://thenextright.com), Big Government (http://biggovernment.com), Publius’ Forum (www.publiusforum.com), and Hot Air (http://hotair.com).

29. MonCrief has published articles for the DC Examiner (www.examiner.com) that are critical of ACORN and Project Vote and accuse them of unethical, inappropriate, and potentially illegal activities.

30. In addition to her blogging and other writing, MonCrief frequently engages in dialogue and debate relating to Project Vote and ACORN via other forms of media, including Twitter and Facebook.

31. MonCrief has appeared on the Fox News Channel for interviews and has been critical of ACORN and Project Vote in such appearances.

32. MonCrief has appeared on various nationally syndicated radio programs and has been critical of ACORN and Project Vote in such appearances.

33. On October 29, 2008, MonCrief testified in a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania against both ACORN and Project Vote alleging various forms of wrongdoing on their part. MonCrief’s testimony covered a variety of topics, including ACORN’s control over its affiliated entities, inappropriate political activities undertaken by Project Vote and ACORN, and various issues related to voter registration fraud.

34. On March 19, 2009, portions of MonCrief’s testimony from the Pennsylvania lawsuit were read into the record as testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives. That Committee was considering an investigation into potentially illegal activities on the part of ACORN. MonCrief’s testimony again indicated unethical and potentially illegal activities on the part
of ACORN and Project Vote, including potential violations of the United States Internal Revenue Code and the Federal Election Campaign Act.

35. In July of 2009, the Committee of Oversight and Governmental Reform of the United States House of Representatives issued a report on ACORN titled “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?,” which accused ACORN of multiple violations of federal law. The report relied in part on information provided by MonCrief, who had previously met with members of the Committee to discuss wrongdoing on the part
of ACORN and Project Vote.

36. On June 17, 2009, Project Vote filed its current complaint against MonCrief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Project Vote purports to seek recovery for approximately $2,700 relating to MonCrief’s alleged misuse of a company credit card in 2007 and failure to pay back all of a cash advance MonCrief allegedly received from Project Vote during her employment.

37. Project Vote’s sole basis for bringing these claims in federal court (not counting their minimal contribution to Project Vote’s claim for $5 million in economic damages, which implicates diversity jurisdiction) is supplemental jurisdiction—their supposed “common nucleus of operative fact” with Project Vote’s claims regarding MonCrief’s email and blog postings, which are discussed below.

38. Project Vote also brings claims against MonCrief, based purportedly on her spring 2009 blog posts and emails critical of ACORN and CSI, among others.

39. Project Vote asserts causes of action based upon trademark violations, trespass to chattels, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with business expectancies, conversion, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.

40. Project Vote prays for damages over $5 million as to its trade secrets, tortious interference, trespass to chattels, and civil conspiracy claims. Moreover, Project Vote seeks treble damages related to its trademark claims.

41. Project Vote’s theory of damages on its tortious interference claims is that MonCrief attempted to “embarrass Project Vote” and “drive a wedge” between itself and ACORN, CSI, Kevin Whelan, Zach Polett, and donors to Project Vote.

42. Project Vote has not identified any contribution it has lost, any financial loss that it has sustained with respect to its contributors, or any reputational or financial damage it has sustained with its own admittedly affiliated organizations (ACORN and CSI) as a proximate cause of MonCrief’s email or posting.

43. Contemporaneously with its Complaint, Project Vote filed a motion seeking leave from this Court to undertake emergency discovery of MonCrief in order to determine what third parties might be providing MonCrief with damaging information about Project Vote.

Count I — Alter Ego Liability

44. Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 trough 43 as though fully set forth herein.

45. ACORN and Project Vote share a unity of interest, ownership, and control to the extent that they do not have separate personalities or identities.

46. Project Vote is a mere instrumentality of ACORN as ACORN has exercised complete domination and control over Project Vote.

47. Failing to pierce the corporate veil of Project Vote to reach ACORN would permit ACORN to hide behind the corporate fiction of Project Vote to shield itself from liability for its wrongful actions.

48. ACORN has attempted to use its allegedly separate existence from Project Vote to manufacture a claim that by posting critical emails or blog entries, MonCrief has (or somehow could) damage the allegedly arms-length relationships between ACORN, CSI, and Project Vote. Under this damage theory, such reputational or financial harms would proximately cause loss to Project Vote. But in reality, this is impossible because Project Vote is an organization that, like its sibling CSI, is a mere instrumentality of ACORN.

Thus, ACORN has attempted to use the fiction of separate corporate existences to create causes of action that could otherwise not be pled.

49. ACORN and Project Vote are alter egos of one another and any liability on the part of Project Vote for abuse of process in this litigation must also be attributed to ACORN.

Count II – Abuse of Process

50. Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth herein.

51. ACORN, Project Vote, and CSI are alter entities of one another and have attempted to use the fiction of independent corporate identities to create the possibility of damages and to manufacture a good faith basis for this lawsuit.

52. The primary purposes and intentions of this lawsuit against MonCrief are not to seek recovery and redress for the causes pled, but (a) to silence MonCrief’s criticism and pressure her to cease her whistle-blowing activities that shed light on wrongdoing on the part of Project Vote, ACORN, and other affiliated organizations of ACORN, and (b) to obtain information from MonCrief as to the current and former sources of her information in order to discover their identity and engage in similar retaliation.

53. ACORN and Project Vote have no legal right to silence MonCrief’s criticism or to prohibit her from exercising her First Amendment right to convey her message and ideas.

54. ACORN and Project Vote have no legal right to prohibit MonCrief from participating in various investigations of Project Vote and ACORN, and have no legal right to prohibit her from engaging in public discourse related to wrongdoing on the part of ACORN and Project Vote.

55. ACORN and Project Vote have no legal right to compel MonCrief to disclose the sources of her information.

56. On information and belief, prior to filing this lawsuit, ACORN and\or Project Vote terminated staff members whom they suspected of providing information to MonCrief, but believe that other sources of information remain in the organization.

57. ACORN and Project Vote are using this lawsuit in an effort to identify these sources of information.

58. ACORN and Project Vote’s lawsuit is manifestly improper because it attempts to pervert the judicial process to achieve ends (namely, silencing of MonCrief’s criticism and forcing her to disclose her sources) which they cannot otherwise legally or regularly compel, but which are also collateral to the relief (payment of over $5 million, presumably accounting for unidentified, unalleged lost contributions and MonCrief’s alleged outstanding
loan and credit card balance) which they purport to seek.

59. MonCrief has suffered damages as a result of Project Vote’s and ACORN’s abuse of process, including but not limited to the costs associated with defending herself against Project Vote’s lawsuit and the chilling of her First Amendment rights.

ACORN’s next big chill attempt is aimed at Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart (defense fund links here), who were all sued last month by ACORN as a result of their investigative journalism stings into the community organizing racket. Breitbart and MonCrief hosted a blogger call this afternoon to discuss MonCrief’s legal defense; Breitbart, Giles, and O’Keefe will host a National Press Club event tomorrow to discuss the next chapter in the ACORN sting saga:

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government will hold a press conference featuring James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, the two daring young journalists who, posing as a “pimp” and “prostitute,” exposed massive corruption within ACORN’s offices throughout the country. The Press Conference will be held at the National Press Club of Washington, DC on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

After suing Breitbart.com, Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles in Maryland over the release of the Baltimore tapes, ACORN has issued public statements denying any wrongdoing in its Philadelphia office and lying about what happened there.
Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles are now prepared to respond.

According to Mr. Breitbart, “ACORN representatives claim James and Hannah were kicked out of Philadelphia. They also said publicly that unlike Baltimore, Washington D.C., Brooklyn, San Bernardino and San Diego, James and Hannah never even mentioned prostitution before they were told to leave. James and Hannah will be joining me to set the record straight. After Wednesday, everyone will know what really happened in Philly.”

Reps Steve King (R-IA) and Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), leaders in the congressional fight to defund ACORN will be also be in attendance to offer brief remarks.

They all stood up to ACORN. Time to stand up for them.

 

 

Muslim Democrat Representative Keith Ellison Blames "Islamist Attacks On Civilization" On "Western Colonialism" (What an Idiot!)

by Andrea Lafferty

Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) who was first elected to Congress in 2006, recently gave the keynote speech at a forum in Washington, D.C. The forum, "Engaging The Muslim World – Challenges and Opportunities" was sponsored by the U.S. Institute Of Peace (USIP).

In his speech, Ellison claimed that "violent extremism with a Muslim veneer is essentially a post-colonial reaction" and the result of a "political environment rooted in grievance."

Ellison claims that the Jihadists are engaging in worldwide terrorism because they're angry about Western colonialism in the past. This is wrong. Ellison clearly hasn't studied the violent history of Islam.

Ellison is portraying a false view of why the Jihadists hate Western Civilization. The Jihadists are killing "infidels" (all non-Muslims) because the Quran (supposedly the revelation of Allah to Muhammad) demands that faithful Muslims kill or enslave anyone who refuses to acknowledge Allah or submit to Islam.

The Jihadists are killing "infidels" (all non-Muslims) because the Quran (supposedly the revelation of Allah to Muhammad) demands that faithful Muslims kill or enslave anyone who refuses to acknowledge Allah or submit to Islam.

 

The Jihadists have waged relentless warfare against the West since the 7th Century when Muhammad sent his armies to conquer, kill and enslave. They have never needed "colonialism" as an excuse to kill infidels. They kill because they're told to kill as part of their religious duty. Killing non-believers in Islamic theology is a sacrament – like taking communion or being baptized in the Christian faith.

In the past centuries, there were two great waves of Islamic imperialism. The first wave of Islamic invasions began in 622 with Muhammad leading his armies to slaughter infidels. The second wave began in 1071 and lasted until 1683 when an Islamic army was destroyed at the Battle of Vienna (Austria) by a coalition of Polish, Prussian and Austrian forces. The Christian victory at the Battle of Vienna saved Europe from Islamic slaughter and enslavement.

The Quran tells faithful Muslims that they must kill non-Muslims or enslave them. In addition, Islamic Shariah law is to be imposed on the whole world. Thus, Islam has always been an aggressive, merciless political system that seeks to dominate the world through the sword.

According to Ellison, "… the United States has more Muslims than many countries that are considered Muslim countries … the United States is part of the Muslim world." What does this mean? In Islamic theology, the entire world is to be forcibly brought under the domination Islam so the world will be at "peace." Is this Ellison's hope for the future?

Last year, Ellison took a Hajj to Mecca. His trip was paid for by the Muslim American Society, which is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The Muslim Brotherhood is a group that has declared war on the United States and Western Civilization. In fact, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Akram, wrote a memo describing how his group was determined to destroy the West.

The Quran tells faithful Muslims that they must kill non-Muslims or enslave them. In addition, Islamic Shariah law is to be imposed on the whole world.

 

According to Akram, Muslims in America "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack."

Is Rep. Ellison aware of this memo by Mohamed Akram? If so, does he care? Is he helping to sabotage the West as a Member of Congress? Is he loyal to the U.S. Constitution or loyal to Shariah law, which demands absolute submission to the demands of the Quran?

It is instructive to know that Ellison was sworn into office by putting his hand on the Quran, not on the Bible. He is the first U.S. Representative in history to do so.

The Quran he used was Thomas Jefferson's copy. According to Ellison: "The very foundation of our nation, the authors of our Constitution impressed, is religious freedom, and the use of Jefferson's Quran shows that the founders not only knew of the Quran but also used it."

Jefferson read the Quran to understand the kind of merciless Muslims the new United States was going to be dealing with.

He and John Adams were dealing with the Muslim Barbary pirates who were seizing ships and enslaving the ship crews in the Strait of Gibraltar.

Jefferson was studying his enemy's war manual!

 

Wrong. Jefferson read the Quran to understand the kind of merciless Muslims the new United States was going to be dealing with in the future. He and John Adams were dealing with the Muslim Barbary pirates who were seizing ships and enslaving the ship crews in the Strait of Gibraltar. Jefferson was studying his enemy's war manual.

Doesn't Ellison know this? A simple Google search on the history of Thomas Jefferson's Quran would have told him.

Given Congressman Ellison's association with radical Islamic groups, it is hard to believe that he knows so little about the radical goals of the Jihadists.

A good first step in separating "good" non-violent Muslims from the terrorist variety would be for people like Mr. Ellison to step forward and condemn the violent ones by name.  If a Congressman is too frightened or too corrupted by Saudi money to do this -- how can we expect mere citizens to stand up to the Jihadists?

 

Second Obama Administration Official Praises Chairman Mao

 

Now the White House manufacturing czar praises Mao.

KFMB:
Another in White House Digs Mao

 

 


 

Second Obama Administration Official Praises Chairman Mao

October 20, 2009

 

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

RUSH: Another tape has surfaced of another Obama official praising Mao Tse-tung.  Let's first go back to June the 5th.  We had this for you last Friday.  This is Anita Dunn, White House communications director at a high school graduation at the Washington National Cathedral.

DUNN:  The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa.  Not often coupled with each other.  In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, the Nationalist Chinese helped the cities, they had the army, they had the Air Force, they had everything on their side.  And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this?  Against all the odds against you?"  And Mao Tse-tung said, "You fight your war and I'll fight mine," and think about that for a second.

RUSH:  I've seen this clip aired on television, and I've seen the noted pundit class commenting on this, and they're saying, "Well, uh, umm, Anita Dunn, she is what she is, but certainly she's not endorsing the policies of Mao Tse-tung!  I mean, he killed 30 million Chinese in his revolution, certainly... I mean we -- we -- Certainly she doesn't -- she doesn't mean it." Let me just put it to you this way.  Can you think of any other administration in this country where a president or a communications specialist or anybody else would run around and start praising Mao Tse-tung as a role model, as a philosopher to follow?  Can you think of any administration who would have previously cited Stalin or Lenin or Castro?  This administration idolizes all these people!  I'm not suggesting they're mass murderers.  I'm saying they envy the total control, the tyrannical control that Mao Tse-tung had.  "You fight your battles and I'll fight mine."  We've got another one to add to the list now.  This is the manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom.  He was the car czar but he's moved over to manufacturing now.  He called the free market "nonsense."  This is February 2008 in New York City, the sixth annual Distressed Investing Forum, and he was special assistant on the president of the United Steelworkers Union at the time.  He's now the White House manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom.

BLOOM:  We get the joke.  We know that the free market is nonsense.  We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is large anted about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political "power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

RUSH:  Now, he's speaking as a union guy there but he's now the manufacturing czar at the White House.  So you got two high-ranking White House officials citing their appreciation for and respect for the philosophies of Mao Tse-tung.  It is happening!  And I'll tell you what really amuses me at times is people, when they hear about this. "Does Obama know who these people are?" (snorts)  Obama is Anita Dunn! Obama is Ron Bloom!  Obama is Van Jones!  Obama is Mark Lloyd!  Obama is ACORN! You think these people just accidentally got chosen to serve in this administration.  Obama is these people!  He gets to go out there and portray himself as Mr. Perfect.  He always smiles. He never ever does anything wrong. He never commits one faux pas. He never loses his cool. He never says radical things.  He's the public face of centrism and moderation, and yet the people doing his dirty work are the same radicals that he is.  

He is a radical.  It's there for everyone to discover.  Some people just don't want to believe it.  So Anita Dunn, praising Mao Tse-tung, is telling us that since Obama now has the army in the cities, we should act like Mao to overtake them?  Is that what she's saying?  I mean, if we followed Mao, what would we be doing now, Ms. Dunn?  If you believed in Mao Tse-tung, "You fight your war, I'll fight mine," okay. You guys have the cities, and you have the guns, so does the rest of what you believe in Mao Tse-tung now follow?  You roll into these cities with the guns and you just finally take over?  Why don't you just outlaw the Republican Party?  Why not just rewrite the Constitution and require redistribution of wealth?  Just shut down Fox News and talk radio. Just shut it down like Hugo Chavez is doing! Shut it down.  You'd have a lot of people standing up and applauding for you.  National Football League would be happy if you did it.  Afghan elections, fraudulent?  Does that mean that Carville took an ACORN representative with him over there in August to run that campaign?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

END TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

Read the Background Material...

 

Gateway Pundit: Good Grief? ANOTHER Mao-Praising Obama Czar Caught on Tape
Hot Air: Video: Fox-bashing WH Mouthpiece Names Chairman Mao as Her Favorite Philosopher

 

 

Cap and Trade for Babies:
One Child Policy Coming to USA?

 

Militant environmentalism is on the march, folks.

IBD: Cap and Trade for Babies?

 


 

Cap and Trade for Babies: One Child Policy Coming to USA?

October 20, 2009

 

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

RUSH: "An environmental writer mainstreams an idea floating around the green fringe -- save the earth by population control and give carbon credits to one-child families. Are we threatened by the patter of little carbon footprints?  It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere and endangering its species. Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing -- carbon dioxide -- has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant.  Treaties like Kyoto and the upcoming economic suicide pact to be forged in Copenhagen have focused on the instruments and byproducts of our civilization.

"Now the focus is shifting increasingly to the people who built it.  New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled 'Covering Climate: What's Population Got To Do With It?' People who need people they are not.  Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, 'if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?'  He went on to say that 'probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children.'  

"'More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,' [the New York Times environmental writer] blogged, wondering 'whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.'" There is a country that has such a policy, the one child policy and vigorously endorses it. That's the ChiComs. And do we not have a White House communications director who considers mass murderer Mao Tse-tung her favorite philosopher?  "This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science adviser John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level. He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource," on the planet, "as we do," the rest of us do.

This is an editorial here from the Investor's Business Daily: "Cap-and-Trade for Babies."  It's coming, folks.  They're going to offer young couples carbon credits for only having one child.  The theory is that human beings are polluting and destroying the planet.  Now, Paul Ehrlich wrote about this back in the seventies in The Population Bomb. It's been totally disapproved, discredited.  This has been part of the militant environmental extreme for years, and here now the people who can make it a reality are running the country.  They are in the White House.  They want a one-child-per-family policy.  Now, this is still a fringe movement. But so at one time was the movement to get rid of SUVs.  

But like everything else in the militant environmentalist wacko community, I believe this is going to happen someday.  Once they get these ideas, they don't give them up. They've been working on this since 1976, and now we got Anita Dunn, who sings the praises of the great "philosopher" Mao Tse-tung in the White House.  Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed it, but I didn't think the government would tell me what kind of food I could and couldn't eat or what kind of car I could drive, either.  Nor did I believe that we would ever someday have a "pay czar" taking salaries back from people he doesn't approve of.  But all these things have happen. So now they're floating the idea, " Cap-and-Trade for Babies," a New York Times environmental writer in a panel constitution about this. 

 

 

 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to go back to this editorial in the Investors Business Daily in which the New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in a panel six days ago, panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits, and it was called "Covering Climate: What's Population Got to Do With It?"  The lefties have been positing the notion -- I first heard it in the seventies when Paul Ehrlich came out with The Population Bomb that too many people, not enough resources, not enough food, we're all going to die, we gotta limit population. It's now gotten to the point that what we exhale, carbon dioxide, is the biggest pollutant on the planet and is destroying the planet and we're going to be in trouble, and they believe that humanity is the greatest scourge on the earth anyway, it's destroying other species, it's destroying resources, and now it's destroying the planet.  

So the purpose of this panel discussion was to eventually come up with a plan to limit the number of children American couples can have by offering them carbon credits for children not had.  Revkin said, in allocating carbon credits for not having kids as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, he said, "if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?"  He went on to say that "probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children." More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.  Now, I've been thinking about this during the commercial break because I take these people seriously.  They are lunatics but they are dangerous.  I take these people seriously.  

If we're going to do this, and this is going to happen, just like you thought I was off my rocker back in 1997 when I told you they were going to come after your SUV, I've warned you every aspect of this leftist agenda is coming. "Rush, that will never happen."  I never thought there would be a pay czar, but it's happened.  I never thought that we'd have governments telling us what we can and can't eat.  I never thought any of this stuff would happen, but it's happening.  This is going to happen.  It's still a fringe movement, but it's going to happen.  But two things about this:  What defines a couple?  Is it marriage?  I mean a lot of people have kids today that are not married.  Do you realize the scheme that is waiting here?  Do you realize all women, regardless of age from about 13 on could argue that they should be paid every nine months for not having a baby because they're saving the planet.  Well, whatever puberty is, 13 on, once puberty hits and you can have a baby every nine months, and you don't do it, can you get a carbon credit, can you get an allowance, can you get whatever they're going to pay you for not doing this?  

We don't even have to talk about getting married.  We don't even have to talk about being a couple.  I mean men have no say now, really, in whether a child is born or not, legally I mean.  So would a man have any way of benefiting from the carbon credit?  A man cannot give birth, women can give birth without a man around, many of them prefer to do so, they work in the Obama administration, too, but that's another thing.  The second aspect -- seriously, you gotta think this way because this is where these people are coming from.  And as I said, what about homosexuals?  They never have babies.  No wonder the New York Times is all for this.  Think of the financial windfall the homosexuals, who never have babies, they can say we are single-handedly doing more than anybody to save the planet.  We should be paid whatever mass sum.  The militant gay community, "Tax the breeders.  We are saving the planet."  Where does this stop?  

 

 

 

But here's another observation.  I think these militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys.  Let me explain this.  What do the jihad guys do?  The jihad guys go to families under their control and they convince these families to strap explosives on who?  Not them.  On their kids.  Grab their three-year-old, grab your four-year-old, grab your six-year-old, and we're going to strap explosives on, and then we're going to send you on a bus or we're going to send you into a shopping center and we're going to tell you when to pull the trigger and you're going to blow up and you're going to blow up everybody around you and you're going to head up to wherever you're going, the 73 virgins are going to be there, the little three or four-year-old doesn't have the presence of mind to say, "Well what about you?  If it's so great up there why don't you go?  Why don't you strap explosives on?"  And their parents don't have the guts to tell the jihad guys, "You do it.  Why do you want my kid to go blow himself up?"  The jihad guys will just shoot 'em because the jihad guys have to maintain control.  

The environmentalist wackos are the same way.  This guy from the New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on earth, Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?  Why do you want every one of us except you and your buddies on the left?  See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they're always for everybody else.  You go and limit the number of kids you have.  You go drive a Yugo.  You go get rid of your big house.  You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that.  But I, Barack Obama, I'm going to throw big parties every night in the White House, I'm going to bring in Earth, Wind and Fire, I'm going to bring in Charlie Pride.  This is happening.  They're having gigs at the White House. Drudge has a story, Earth, Wind and Fire, a bunch of people coming in they're having big parties, Obama's playing basketball. I saw a picture today Obama's basketballs are logoed with his logo on them.  I kid you not.  Yes, they are.  Yes, they are.  I got a picture of that circle with the three red lines, the rip-off of the Pepsi logo, his basketballs are logoed.  

Somebody who's made basketballs has made up a bunch with Obama's logo on them.  It's no big deal. I have the EIB logo on my golf balls.  No big deal, but anyway, he's out there playing basketball while everything is going to hell in a handbasket because of his policies and he's still living high on the hog with $100 a pound Kobe beef, throwing all these parties, flying off to Paris, New York, London, for dates with Michelle (My Belle) and, meanwhile, you can't find a job and you're told your unemployment is now going to be normal, this level of unemployment is now normal, AP put the news out today.  So they come up with all these policies but they're for everybody else but them.  Same as the jihad guys, the jihad guys never strap explosives on themselves, the jihad leaders never get on a bus, blow themselves up along with everybody else on it and then seek the 73 virgins or whatever the come-on is.  But they have three and four, five, six-year-olds do it.  

It's not just the environmentalists that have a lot in common with the jihad guys.  And just as the families in these Palestinian and Hezbollah carps and so forth never say to the jihad guys, "Why don't you do it?  If it's so damn good, if this is how we advance our movement, if this is how we get rid of the Jews, if this is how we get freedom, if this is how we get our state, why don't you blow yourself up?"  By the same token, nobody in this country says, "Obama, why don't you park Air Force One and drive where you're going?  Why don't you start serving ground chuck instead of serving Kobe beef at your parties?  Why don't you hire a karaoke machine instead of Earth, Wind and Fire?"  Nobody ever says that.  Nobody says to any of these liberals conjuring up all these policies, "Show us leadership, you do it first.  You put some thermostat in your house where the power company gets to control it, you do it."  Just like the jihad guys.  Because what do they have in common?  They're all tyrannical, power hungry mobsters in one way or another.  

 

 

 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: If I may get serious with you for a moment. The left, if you believe them, believes that there's one species on the planet destroying it.  Now, all mammals exhale carbon dioxide.  But somehow only man, only human beings' carbon dioxide is destroying the planet.  It's only man in all of his endeavors, particularly Capitalist Man, Western Culture man. Those are the culprits!  We are the real culprits. We are destroying the planet. We are the one species on the planet that's destroying it.  Why does the left think this?  I'll tell you what I think.  We, human beings, are the only species who have the capacity to know and understand the concept of God.  No other species has the slightest clue.  A fish doesn't even know it's in water.  A dog doesn't know it's a dog.  

And who the hell knows what cockroaches think.  I don't even want to contemplate it.  To know God is something unique for all species on the planet. It's us.  We're the only ones who know God, who can conceive God and all that that means.  Therefore, to the left, to know God is the single most destructive part of the human mind.  That's what has to be destroyed. Faith in God, belief in God, that's the real enemy -- and there are many enemies of the left, but that's the first. You go to any communist country and the first thing they do is wipe God and religion out of everybody's mind.  The State becomes God and whoever is running it at the time becomes The Messiah.  There is no God other than The State.  See, God put us here to procreate, to experience his gifts.  The left, in order to ultimately succeed, has to end our understanding of God's existence and purpose.  

Therefore, we're not going to fix this economic mess until we fix or moral mess.  Our country is in a moral shambles, and until we fix the moral destruction that has crept over our culture we're not going to be able to really fix anything else -- and when you start talking about fixing the moral mess, then you really cause the left to rise up and come after you.  So the strip all this stuff away and what's at the root of it is: A belief in too many people in something other than The State, something other than the government.  If you strip away God... 'Cause a human being has to believe in something, a higher power. Even atheists, they've got something that has a higher power. It's a tree or whatever.  It could be another human being. It could be institution that human beings put together but there's gotta be something.  If you strip God out it has to be The State.  So that's what's happening.  That's really at the root of this.  

 

 

 

END TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

 

 

Keep Your Eyes Trained on 2010

 

Obama races to pass everything before the election.

 

Keep Your Eyes Trained on 2010

October 20, 2009

 

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

 

RUSH: Neil, Charlotte, North Carolina.  Welcome, sir.  Glad you waited.  You're on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey, Rush, I heard you talking a while ago about never hearing about a pay czar, and I hadn't either until I was talking to my father-in-law, and he told me about a man named Leon Henderson back in FDR's time. An executive order by FDR created what was called the Office of Price Administration.  Leon Henderson, my father-in-law's friend, became the head of that division of the OPA and he was dubbed the price czar by the media.  And the interesting thing was the OPA was actually used to help control and regulate resources during wartime trying to stave off inflation, but it actually morphed into what government normally does, an overreaching arm.  And in 1942, October 2nd, the Office of Economic Stabilization was responsible for, get this, controlling wage levels and regulating food prices and basically generally stabilizing the cost of living.  But the problem that stemmed from that was the government outreach, talk about Big Brother, in 1943 alone, 650,000 investigations into private citizens for noncompliance and 618,000 violations in 1943 and '44.  So the government chased these people down.

RUSH:  You know, I didn't know all of that.  I'm not surprised, 'cause it didn't work.  And we came out of it, and a lot of those policies were repudiated.  And it's true that we've had wage and price controls tried a couple of times.  I remember Nixon did it.  Nixon did it when inflation was 3%, wage and price controls.  And they never work.  They never work.  Look, this guy does fashion himself as a modern-day FDR, there's no question about that, and those are interesting facts that you cited.  But I'll tell you something.  What Obama is doing with all of these czars, particularly the pay czar, is a little different than wage and price controls.  Wage and price controls are slapped all over the country, and they are by definition temporary.  They are to control an emergency at the moment, ostensibly.  What Obama is doing is buying companies.  Obama is nationalizing companies and then telling people in those companies what they can and can't earn, it's a pure definition of fascism.  

But I agree with you, there are a lot of similarities, which, by the way, offers a lot of reasons for hope because we came out of that, and of course it took a world war to get us out of that kind of stuff, but the country did not fall into dictatorship.  The country did not fall into tyrannical control.  FDR tried, but it didn't fall to that.  I know we're still living with it but we haven't succumbed to it is the point, and we're not going to succumb to this.  I've gotten some e-mails, "Rush, you're really depressing me today. I feel like just checking out."  Let me tell you something, folks.  I happen to be depressed.  I happen to be in a foul mood today, and I'm not one of these people that come in here and go, "Hey, hey, everything's wonderful, ah, great."  Normally I'm up and ebullient, but today I'm just in a foul mood.  All this stuff is getting to me, but I don't think they're going to win.  My frustration centers around the lack of organized opposition to it and that's going to have to happen at some point in time.  The future of this country will be determined in November of 2010 and we've already learned today, given what they've done to Kinston, North Carolina, they are counting on election fraud big time.  

They know at the White House that they are in big trouble.  They can read the poll numbers.  They know what the mood of this country is.  That's why there is a sprint to get all of this stuff done before 2010 but it won't be enacted until after 2010 and some of it not until after 2012, after Obama runs for reelection.  That's why 2010 is a crucially important time.  That's where ultimately this is going to be stopped.  But, no, the tea parties weren't for naught.  The town hall meetings, they were not for naught, they weren't worthless.  Let's play this sound bite number nine.  This is Eric Massa.  He's on a liberal talk show.  And, let's see, there's a fill-in host, I never heard of the fill-in host, so I'm not going to mention the name.  "Senator Kent Conrad is still pushing the idea of co-ops.  Is that dead in the water?  What's the point of talking about it?"

 

 

MASSA:  The Senate bill and the House bill are on different planets.  And they're on different planets because as much as I want this administration to succeed they did not present a piece of legislation to the United States Congress.  We still don't have a piece of paper that says what his plan is.  We're kind of like pilots flying blind.

RUSH:  Now, this is again Eric Massa who's a Democrat from New York, a member of the House of Representatives.  So it indicates there's some frustration out there and I'll tell you what the frustration is.  These guys are going to go stand for reelection next November, a year from now, and they're the ones having to put their names and their reputations on these myriad plans.  Meanwhile, the great emancipator -- sorry -- The Messiah, Barack Obama, sits up there and gets to play Mr. Perfect all day long and bring in Earth, Wind & Fire, grab Air Force One and take the family up for dinner and for dates and so forth, and be treated like there's never been a human being like him and he gets to escape all the heat for it.  So there's no question some Democrats are a little, "Eh, where's his plan?  We got five plans, these two plans are on different planets."

Meanwhile, we're all on the Hale-Bopp comet while the health care plans are on two different planets and he's saying, "I don't know where we're going to come to any agreement here and we're not going to come to an agreement on these two different plans unless Obama tells us what he wants."  And he's not going to do that.  Not now with his poll numbers shrinking, it's just not going to happen.  So these guys are starting to say, wait a minute, we don't want to sink or swim on this when he's going to get the credit for it and we're going to get the blame.  So, look, these guys are playing defense, they're playing defense.  None of this was supposed to happen.  Obama was supposed to get health care in August, before August.  There was supposed to be universal acclamation, "Whatever you want, Barack, it's yours," from everybody in the country.  There was not supposed to be this opposition.  And now look what they're doing, going after me, going after Fox News, talk radio. Their colors are showing and they are not pretty.  

 

 

END TRANSCRIPT

 

Read the Background Material...

 

The Hill: House Dem: Obama Not Leading on Healthcare
Washington Times: Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party
American Thinker: DOJ Forces Town to Put Party Labels on Candidates for Racial Reasons

 

 

 

 

CNN Reports on Rush, Day Two

 

CNN stalker-reporter Carol Costello on your host.

 

CNN Reports on Rush, Day Two

October 20, 2009

 

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

 

RUSH: All right, here's installment two of the CNN stalker, Carol Costello.  She's the beat reporter assigned to me.  A portion of her report on "Anger on the Air."

STALKER: President Obama said this back in January: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."  He was talking as if talk radio wields power over politicians.  Well, does any talk show host have that kind of power?  No one wields that political club more effectively than Rush Limbaugh.  Influential, sure.  But powerful?  Some say even with Limbaugh's vast audience...no! According to Talkers magazine, 56% of those who listen to talk radio identify themselves as "independent."

GERGEN:  Limbaugh endorsing a candidate for president is not sufficient to get that person nominated by the Republican Party.

STALKER:  Case in point?

RUSH ARCHIVE:  If Huckabee and McCain get the nomination, there's a good chance this party is finished.

STALKER:  But McCain did win the GOP nomination in 2008, and despite Limbaugh's anti-Obama talk, Barack Obama became president.

RUSH:  All right.  So I'm not influential, I have no real power, I didn't like McCain or Obama and they both won.  So why has CNN assigned Carol Costello it stalk me?  What are they so afraid of?  And, you know, Carol, if you'd have watched the Today Show interview last Monday and Tuesday you would have seen me talk about this whole concept of "power" that you have assigned to me.  As I listen to this, I said, "If Huckabee and McCain get the nomination, a good chance the party is finished."  It is finished!  The party's in deep trouble.  Obama became president.  Yeah, but there was nobody to vote for.  Anyway, that's the latest in their installment of "Anger on the Air" with their stalker reporter Carol Costello.

 

 

RUSH:  El Cajon, California, John you are on the EIB Network, sir.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey first-time caller, Rush.  Hey, if you went away they'd be out of work, all these news organizations that have people going after you.

RUSH:  It would be their worst nightmare.

CALLER:  Yeah, I had a quick comment on --

RUSH:  They'd lose. They'd lose half their own audiences talking about it.  If I didn't exist, they'd have to invent me.

CALLER: (laughing) Yeah, I was going to say as far as the stimulus goes I think it's doing great because yesterday the White House says they created or "saved" thousands of teaching jobs in our colleges and schools and I'm just wondering if Jennings was in charge of the hiring or how that all went about.  They couldn't say what kind of new jobs were creates or anything.  It was just, you know, a dog-and-pony show.

RUSH:  Look, the bottom line is that 30,000 jobs were "saved" and we've lost seven million. Big whoop!  By the way, CNN I want you to hear this.  Charles Krauthammer. I want to thank Charles Krauthammer. This on Fox News last night he's talking about CNN.

KRAUTHAMMER: CNN is an organization that a few weeks ago had a fact-checking on a Saturday Night Live skit that was mildly critical of Obama; but did no fact-checking on wildly, grotesquely, libelous racist statements allegedly made by Rush Limbaugh which were not made by Rush Limbaugh. It gives you an idea of the difference in how they treat things, and that's not a matter of sloppiness. That's a matter of ideology.

RUSH:  Thank you, Charles, very much.  That's twice he's commented on this.  Last Friday night (I didn't know this until recently) he said the NFL owes me an apology, which I think they do, but it's a pipe dream.  Carol Costello, you need to fact-check your own reports and you need to investigate your own network.  I mean, you have a sewer there, and until you guys investigate yourselves, nothing is going to change.

 

 

END TRANSCRIPT

 

Read the Background Material...

 

National Review: Krauthammer's Take

 

 

Tuesday Quotes: Last Man Standing

October 20, 2009

 

 

 

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102009/content/01125100.guest.html

 

 

 

"Our troops are waiting and our commander-in-chief is voting 'present.' It might be good politics, but it sure isn't good leadership."

"The United States has become Michigan in its trend lines now, and the United States is prepared to duplicate what Jennifer Granholm has done: raise taxes again, foist new programs that cannot be paid for, and rack up more debt."

"Can you think of any other administration in this country where somebody would start praising Mao Tse-tung as a role model, as a philosopher to follow? I'm not suggesting they're mass murderers in this administration; I'm just saying that they envy the total control Mao had."

"These incompetent boobs are destroying our country, and people on our side think that it's just the next news story: 'Oh, man, look! My website's going to go gangbusters! Oh, wow, what a great news story!' Our country is being dismantled right before our very eyes!"

"Unlike they did with Nixon's enemies list, which they despised and hated, the media will be happy to join the Obama administration in going after those who are their list. Where are you now, 60 Minutes? Where are you now, Nightline?"

"Obama doesn't really think we're threatened by anything over in the Middle East. He believes any threat to the United States will be reduced if we just say, 'Look, folks, we're going to go home and we're sorry for having screwed you in the past.'"

"Wage and price controls are by definition temporary. What Obama is doing is completely different. He's buying companies and then telling people in those companies what they can and can't earn. It's the definition of fascism."

"Why don't you -- David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, Anita Dunn, and all the rest of you socialists -- just get together and rewrite the Constitution? You're doing it anyway!"

"Now we have Anita Dunn, who sings the praises of the great philosopher Mao Tse-tung, in the White House. Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed it, but, then again, I didn't think the government would have a pay czar taking salaries back from people he doesn't approve of." 

"Obama's the public face of moderation, yet the people doing his dirty work are the same radicals that he is. It's there for everyone to discover."

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113420

 

Chest thumping simians and greedy cowards

Posted: October 20, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Ignorance is bliss, so the saying goes, and right about now there are a lot of blissfully ignorant folks prattling about, thumping their chests – characteristic of their simian ancestry save for the scratching of their underarms. I'm talking about those who are taking credit for undermining Rush Limbaugh's enjoining a group interested in purchasing the St. Louis Rams football team.

To hear them tell it, Rush is the devil right out of hell for daring to speak his opinion (in a free society), and often for stating the obvious. Those involved would be laughable in their complaint if they weren't unambiguously ignorant and totally given over to a set of double standards.

Would Rush be worse for the game than Ricky Williams or Lawrence Phillips? One is a self-described "poster child for marijuana," the other a thug who serially beat women. Would Rush be worse for the game than the dozens and dozens of players and coaches who have been arrested (many repeatedly) for drugs, steroids, assault, murder, drunk driving and firearms offenses?

Mercury Morris has no room to cast stones at Rush from his glass house, or does he forget his career included a 20-year prison sentence on cocaine charges – his subsequent new trial and plea-bargain arrangement that netted him three years notwithstanding?

Rush may have spent a brief chapter of his life addicted to prescription painkillers, but I have never heard of anyone saying Rush's entire staff and conglomerate were doing drugs. Yet, not so very long ago, I spent time in an AFC East team locker room where 40 out of 45 players were doing drugs by their own admission.

 

When is the last time Rush was accused of rape or spousal abuse? When is the last time Rush was involved in gun-play or a stabbing at a nightclub? Has Rush ever been charged with felony DUI? How many NFL players and coaches has the net of those charges ensnared? I don't recall Rush ever being charged with having a private residence for the express purpose of having sex, drug and alcohol parties as one group of NFL players did.

That this amalgamation of arrogant, self-indulgent athletes, with limited social and lingual marketability, are held up as role models, while Rush is bastardized, is an indictment of the zeitgeist that champions touchdowns and tackles over the freedom of reasoned expression. The NFL has welcomed back with open arms the likes of Leonard Little (DUI resulting in death, his blood alcohol .19 percent), Chip Banks, Billy Lane, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Michael Vick, Donte Stallworth (who received 30 days house arrest for DUI manslaughter with a blood alcohol of .126 percent), Lawrence Taylor, a coach threatening to kill another coach, and the list goes on and on. But Roger Goodell and the player's association thinks Rush would be bad for the NFL. I submit the NFL would welcome back Rae Carruth if his 18-24 year sentence for conspiracy to murder his pregnant girlfriend were shortened, assuming he still had the requisite skills.

Does anyone think Jim Brown would be held to the same standard being applied to Rush? Brown's extraordinary record of assaulting women, accusations of rape, an unexplained instance of a woman being thrown from a balcony, assault, ad nauseam, would not be a blip on the radar screen, if he were inclined to be involved in the purchase of a franchise.

It's a shame that the decent, honest, reputable players are often branded with the thugs of the league. But that is what they are attempting to do to Rush. They are attempting to brand someone they know nothing about as a racist and a bigot, when the truth is he has done more for the ordinary person than the NFL thug-nasties – unless supporting bars and nightclubs by perpetual drunkenness counts.

Agree with his opinions or not, Rush Limbaugh is singularly responsible for a generation of talk-format opinion and national debate. No has done more for the cause of public discourse and involvement than Rush has done. The thuggery responsible for scaring those considering the purchase of the St. Louis Rams and Rush's participation in same have further paved the way for the downward spiral of America.

Their capitulation and transpicuous display of cowardice based on greed has strengthened and encouraged those who would ransack the rights of an individual to buy, own and make gain. The Checketts group's act of cowardice will further be used in the current administration's attempt to silence the voice they fear most. Congratulation, guys – you've contributed to the very campaign you privately decry.

Lest I omit the involvement of Jackson and Sharpton in the attacks against Rush – maybe they can put together a group of interested buyers. After all, they have just the kind of sordid backgrounds Roger Goodell and the league obviously find appealing – it's white conservatism they cannot abide.