SWAT Team Called In To Control Tea Party Crowd!

by Meredith Jessup - April 28th, 2010 - Townhall.com

Reports from the scene are that the rowdy tea party group broke out into song with a spontaneous rendition of 'God Bless America.' Good thing they had tear gas on hand in case things got out of control...

Of course this would have provoked ricicule if it had been anyone but Obama and his minions who reacted this way. Instead the MSM reported it like there was a serious need to protect the President from the violence of the crowd. (Shown below.)


TEA Party crowd that frightened President Obama

The President's Permanent TARP Bailout Socialism Bill

by Peter Ferrara - April 28th, 2010 - American Spectator

... Still another option under the Dodd bill is for the government to seize the competitors of politically favored institutions, and even to sell those seized firms to the favored too big to fail operations. All of these possible government seizures and bailouts are expressly shielded under the bill from any judicial review.

With such arbitrary government power to favor some firms and punish others, the financial community, and, indeed, business overall, will be political captives of the Obama Administration and the reigning Washington Democrats. If the permanent bailout bill passes, what financial company is going to participate in any way in a fundraiser for a 2012 Obama challenger, or even Republican Congressional or state candidates? What company will dare not pay protection money in the form of political contributions to the reigning Democrats?

It is not just abhorrent that this bill is being considered. It is abhorrent that Republicans do not know how to portray their opposition.

Inside The Obama Doctrine For American Decline

by Jed Babbin - April 27th, 2010 - Washington Examiner

Every world leader's foreign policy goals comprise what the press and historians label his "doctrine." What is the Obama Doctrine?

At the end of the recent nuclear summit, Obama spoke of nuclear proliferation and the Middle East, saying, "It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because, whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower. And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them."

Peace in the world is rarely attained with no conflict. The Pax Americana of the last 60 years has been good for the world. Like the major superpower in any age, a nation benefits enormously from being on top. We have benefitted there is no doubt. Still America has acted more responsibly with this power than any major superpower in history. Yet Obama, who claims he is American, sees our being on top as unacceptable. Even if you ignore all his apologies for what he sees as our shortcomings, this one sentence makes it clear he is undeserving of being our leader. It is difficult to tell if he simply hates our being on top or wishes some specific foreign power to gain this role instead.

With Obama as President, America will not remain on top for very long. The only question is how devastating will be our slide from the top to wherever we end up under Obama, and how many Americans will die during the process.

The Limits Of Power

by Thomas Sowell - April 20th, 2010 - National Review Online

When, many years ago, I first began to study the history of slavery around the world, one of the oddities that puzzled me was the practice of paying certain slaves, which existed in ancient Rome and in America’s antebellum South, among other places.

In both places, slave owners or their overseers whipped slaves to force them to work, and in neither place was whipping a slave literally to death likely to bring any serious consequences.

There could hardly be a greater power of one human being over another than the arbitrary power of life and death. Why then was it necessary to pay certain slaves? At the very least, it suggested that there were limits to what could be accomplished by power.

Very interesting question, what are the limits to power?

I was very intrigued back in the 80s when the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union lost control of their ability to intimidate the people under their control. The ethnic enclaves had always hated the Russians and when the time came they were able to throw off their persecutors. What was more surprising was that in the process the Russians threw over communism as well.

It took a lot of generations (and a lot of people paid with their freedom and their lives) to make this happen, but it does suggest that even if America becomes a tyranny it cannot be said to be "forever".

Wall Street Is Corporate Socialism

A blogger named "frenchie" posted the following list of donors to the Obama campaign summarized by their respective organizations.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820 (Our civil servants of course!)
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Excluding the marxists from our major universities, the "corporate socialists" (or "crony capitalists" if you prefer) from Wall Street and the Fortune 500 are the major supporters of Democrats, Obama and various other socialists who run for office.

When, when, when... will Republicans wake up and realize that Wall Street no longer repersents the interests of free enterprise. With their dedication to mergers and acquistions to create monopolies, their invention of scams like deriviatives and collateralized bond obligations, Wall Street no longer funds America's businesses. They are nothing but a lottery system to suck profits FROM free enterprise, not a funding source FOR free enterprise.

Knee jerk defense of Wall Street is the dumbest Republican response possible.

What Democrats Mean By "Civility"

by John Hinderaker - April 17th, 2010 - Powerline

... [Minnesota Democrat Betty] McCollum's contribution to "ending name-calling" consists of saying that her political opponents are would-be mass murderers. Such is the twisted logic that dominates today's Democratic Party.

Having insulted a major element of her political opposition by significantly less than civil discourse, the only thing left is for her to demand that these mass murderers (her words) be civil to her and her fellow Democrats. Why? Because the violence and smearing tactics of Democrats are not available to their enemies. Democrats can say anything, burn Republican headquarters, stomp Republican protestors, shut down meetings lead by Republicans and call Republicans vile names like nazi, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobe, extremist and liar. If Republicans respond, or even just react, we are "inciting violence" and it is demanded that WE stop name-calling.

‘No Fly’ Foul As Girl, 6, Put On List

by Richard Weir - April 17th, 2010 - Boston Herald

Meet America’s tiniest terrorist: 6-year-old Allison Mosher, who’s landed on the nation’s No Fly List alongside mad bombers and other villainous thugs in a mind-boggling snafu that could scuttle her family’s Grand Canyon vacation, her outraged dad says.

“It’s flabbergasting,” Peter Mosher, 41, a software engineer from the Worcester area, told the Herald, recounting his pitched battle yesterday to clear his daughter’s name so they can catch their 6:10 a.m. United Airlines flight this morning at Logan International Airport.

No. It is not flabbergasting. It is typical. Government bureaucracies work just like this. These are the same people that Barack Hussein Obama wants to put in charge of your health care. These are the same people that Adolf Hitler put in charge of his final solution for Jews.

Government bureaucrats are mind numbingly stupid, technical, and indifferent. Often the results are greater tyranny than if they were intentionally evil. They are instead, evil by result rather than intent. If their actions screw up your life, or even take your life, they could not care less. They have the power. Therefore it is your job to shut up and deal with the results. It is not their problem. They followed the rules.

However you better not insult them by calling them fascist goons. For that you will go to jail.

The Real Reason They Hate Us

by Frank Gaffney - April 9th, 2010 - TownHall.com

For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.

Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.

Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates - responsible for the U.S. military, the intelligence community, homeland security and federal law enforcement - have systematically failed to fully realize that we once again face a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction.

The battle of ideas is fought with words. It is in the use of words by our leaders that our imminent defeat on this battlefield of ideas is obvious. George W. Bush was too befuddled to declare this a war against anything but a tactic. He called it the "war on terror". As a result he lost support of the American people and his party was routed in two successive elections, 2006 and 2008. Now Obama calls it the war against "man caused disasters".

Both of these submissive failures to boldly face who and what is attacking us make us seem like a joke to our enemies. Both leaders indicated surrender in the war of ideas. That assures our enemy will keep fighting no matter how many battles we might win. We must change this. We must stop looking like weak failures in the battle of ideas.

To me, part of the problem is that we have stopped being a nation with a majority of its citizens being freedom warriors, proud and independent. At its founding, from the top to the bottom of our society, people were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to demand that all should live free.

I have long admired those who expressed frustration at the unwillingness of our leaders to talk about winning this current war with words that actually had a chance of supporting a chance at winning. There are some out there who have pointed out the stupidity of this and Frank Gaffney is clearly one. He has written an excellent article that summarizes all the failings of our leaders. It explains this Islamic force dedicated to our destruction with words that clarify rather than obfuscate what we need to do.

This is not a new war. During the 18th century, over a million people were enslaved by what we came to call the Barbary Pirates. Because of the insistence by their Islamic Ambassador in London that their domination over us was ordained by their Koran, America attempted to bribe the pirates for over 20 years. Thomas Jefferson finally realized the futility of this strategy and sent the U.S. Marines.

Though we are still at war with the exact same religious force of evil, we have gone back to the strategy of trying to bribe the pirates to leave us alone. Even with all of our military forces in the region, our major effort is sending billions of dollars to "develop" this area... as if by money we could win their hearts and minds. This money is being wasted and is fattening the pockets of our enemies, just as the bribes to the Barbary pirates never ever worked when we tried it 200 years ago.

We do not yet understand either who we are at war with or how to win the war.

This article is truly a must read for Americans who wish to remain free.

Survey: Four In 10 Tea Party Members Are Democrats Or Independents

by Sean J. Miller - April 4th, 2010 - The Hill

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

In polls in a couple of states, the number of Independents and Democrats exceed 50% of the TEA Party. Though it is clear that many of the Independents are former Republicans who abandoned the Republican Party over its excessive base of social conservatives who are otherwise all over the map in their fiscal ideas, many are former Jackson Democrats who have never thought of themselves as Republicans. Most of the Democrats are the rare conservatives committed to the "old" Democrat Party which opposed the rich country club Republican Party that no longer exists.

What the TEA Party really represents is a huge realignment of attitude by many apathetic voters who have been shocked out of their apathy by the threat of the Obama regime.

In Ohio, it has just been reported, huge numbers of Democrats are changing their registration to Republican. The ratio is seven to one in the number moving Republican versus the number moving Democrat.

The Great Political War Obama Never Expected

by J. Robert Smith - April 10th, 2010 - American Thinker

Providence is no friend of hubris, and there is much foul hubris in the left's maximum leader, Barack Obama, and perhaps as much in his minions. Whether the Tower of Obama meets the same fate as the Tower of Babel depends on the outcome of the political war underway. Expect the war to be protracted and a close run thing, for, when push comes to shove, Mr. Obama and the left are choosing to govern in semi-caudillo fashion; that is, contrary to the will of the people. Utopia is being foisted on Americans for their own good.

The cocky President Obama, his chief henchman, the bullying locker-room nudist, Rahm Emanuel, and his Rasputin, a Chicago political machine consigliere named Axelrod, all misinterpreted and overestimated the results of the Democrats' ascendency in 2006 and 2008. They were buoyed by the analyses of shifts in the electorate penned by liberal pundits. America, the left believed, was ripe for a sharp turn left.

The TEA Party movement is the most obvious response to this belief. Though there are many who embrace the concepts of the left, it is clear it does not constitute the majority of the American Public. Yet like the outcome of the Civil War, victory is not assured for either side.

The author of this article, J. Robert Smtih, is clearly knowledgeable of the military actions in the Civil War our nation fought. His belief that the current battle for our country's future is similar in its importance to the battle of Cold Harbor is interesting. It is quite likely that Barack Obama and his minions would find little solace in comparing their predicament to that of Robert E. Lee at Cold Harbor.

The forces of freedom and liberty can still win. Yet like the battle at Cold Harbor, it is still possible for the forces who fight for the destruction of our nation to carry the day. Just as Lee and the Confederacy could well have won the Civil War if only a few small battles had alternate outcomes that were clearly possible. War is a battle of wills and strategy. Neither is by itself compelling.

President Obama's Naive Nuclear Posturing

by Charles Krauthammer - April 9th, 2010 - Investor's Business Daily

Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

It is not just on Nuclear Posturing that Obama is displaying his naive ideas about foreign relations. He is rapidly replacing Pax Americana with... nothing. With a feel good belief that America is no longer a reliable ally or an enemy that needs to be feared. The result. Chavez is one of a hand full of Central and South American rulers that are starting to interfere in their neighboring countries internal affairs, acts which will inevitably lead to war in our hemisphere.

The same naive ideas have led to our abandoning Israel in the middle east, assuring that not only will Pakistan have nuclear bombs, but shortly so will Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Syria. Anyone who remembers the earlier acts of the Pakistani nuclear genius Khan (helping Syria, Lybia and Iraq in their nuclear efforts), will have little doubt Pakistan can generate huge sums sharing their nuclear expertise with fellow Islamic countries and movements. It is not unlikely that even Al Qaeda or the Taliban could join the nuclear club by simply buying a couple of bombs for use on Israel and the U.S.

Gee whiz, Obama. Do you not have a single adviser who has suggested to you the real world consequences of your gutting America's image? Or do you just not care if New York and Washington become a smoldering nuclear wasteland?

Regulating The Internet, One Way Or The Other

by Lori Drummer - April 9th, 2010 - Big Government

According to Tuesday’s unanimous court ruling, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is not above the law – no matter what Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski or his Leftist friends at Free Press might wish.

For the past several years, the Left has breathlessly claimed that without the imposition of government oversight and control, the Internet as we know it will cease to exist.

Just try and follow the Left’s logic for a moment. The Internet – whose ingenious development and explosive growth has occurred almost entirely free from the heavy hand of the government – will cease to exist as we know it without the heavy hand of government?

This week’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit clearly states that the FCC does not have the authority to impose network neutrality rules on Internet service providers. Indeed, the FCC “failed to tie its assertion” that any law gives the Commission regulatory authority to oversee Internet providers’ network management practices.

That’s right: no law exists that gives the FCC the authority to regulate Internet service providers. It’s not that the FCC just misinterpreted their authority – they unilaterally asserted authority where none existed.

So, what’s this Obama FCC likely to do now? Well, forge ahead anyway, of course!

Instead of suspending their network neutrality rulemaking proceeding, the FCC has extended the comment period for the proceeding (from April 8 to April 26), seeking creative ideas on how they can legally assert their authority to regulate the Internet.

This war for control of the Internet provides greater insight into the tyrannical instincts of Barack Obama and his regime than most issues can provide. It is absolutely asinine to pretend that the highly competitive and unregulated world of the Internet has not driven innovation and service improvements at a nearly unbelievable rate. Yet regulatory control is Obama's knee jerk reaction to an Internet Service Provider trying to assure high performance by restricting the excessive band width requirements of one type of service. The immediate reaction is that the provider must ask permission of a bureaucrat to make such decisions.

Why? Because in this case the service being constrained is represented by a large contributor to Democrat causes of course.

If our nation permits that regulatory control to Obama - I guarantee that decisions will be made not based on what is best for Internet consumers but what is politically best for the Democrat Party.

Bet on it.

The Middle Ground Is Disappearing

by David Warren - April 3rd, 2010 - The Ottawa Citizen

Both [Peggy Noonan and David P. Goldman] see catastrophe coming in the present overreaching of the Obama presidency and the attendant triumphalism that this is spreading through the forces of the Left, internationally.

Both would be dismissed unread as "right wing" by people who use that as a term of abuse. But that abuse necessarily excludes every thoughtful writer. Only those with some sense of history, and of the received, traditional order of things (old-fashioned ideas about freedom and morality and God) have any foundation on which to stand and view the revolution now in progress. Yet there are many, many kinds of "right wing," and one may usefully try to build a composite "counter-revolutionary" view.

The same apocalyptic story is being told from the other side, but in a radically different way. I am personally besieged, as are all other defenders of "Western Civ" of whom I am aware, by people telling us to shut up or actually trying to shut us down. No arguments are offered: only brownshirt sarcasm and smears. ("Racist! Sexist! Homophobe! Islamophobe!") Yet I have nowhere been able to find a "left wing" writer who can give a coherent account of where the Left is proposing to take us; of what that Utopian destination of perfect "fairness" and "equality" will be. Or rather, how it would ultimately differ, from the complete extinction of the human race...

My growing despair includes frustration with the fact that the left is still successfully denigrating the right as the source of the violence when they are the primary practitioners and initiators.

I have only one prediction that I have repeated for nearly 3 years, posting it several times on this blog. Tel Aviv and New York will both be destroyed by nuclear bombs. It is coming. When it happens, it will tear this nation apart.

Even if Israel delays that day by taking out the Iran nuclear capability, it will only be a postponement.

Even if conservatives and libertarians and moderates take back the two houses of congress this fall, it will only be a postponement.

This article sums it up better than any other I have seen. We are in a struggle between the culture of life and the culture of death. The battle, when it starts, will be bloody.

Sometimes there is no middle ground.

Charlie Rangel Seems To Have Forgotten His Sunday School Lessons

by Staff - April 3rd 2010 - New York Daily News

These are rough days for Rep. Charlie Rangel. He talks and some amazing things burst forth from his mouth. None of them more astonishing and hilarious than his great big oopsie Friday.

There he was on Holy Thursday, the eve of the most solemn day of the Christian calendar, the day that marks the crucifixion of Christ after history's most notorious betrayal, that of Judas Iscariot.

At a political rally, union big Chris Shelton branded Rep. Mike McMahon of Staten Island a "Judas" for voting against President Obama's health care reform bill. It was, to put it delicately, an indelicate turn of phrase. Rangel stepped in to soften the blow.

"Judas was ultimately forgiven," said the congressman, who happens to be Catholic. "Judas became a saint... "

... Not exactly. Not even close. Not unless Rangel knows something about God's infinite mercy and wisdom that is unknown to all others.

Saint Judas? Now that really would split the Protestants from the Catholics.

Disgruntled Democrats Join The Tea Party

by Shannon Travis - April 2nd, 2010 - CNN

Ann Ducket attended the Tea Party rally in Grand Junction, Colorado, on Wednesday.

A lawyer and lifelong Democrat, Ducket made her political leanings clear: She said she was a campus community organizer for Democratic Sen. George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, voted for Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, and previously ran for elective office in Colorado as a Democrat.

"I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I probably did inhale in college," Ducket said.

Ducket, who is now an independent and did not vote for Obama, said the president has "carried things to an extreme."

"I think we've gone too far on the side of government doing too much," Ducket said. "The Democratic Party is wanting to take care of everyone, instead of helping everybody stand on their own two feet."

Roxanne Lewis expressed a similar point of view. A small business owner in Grand Junction, Lewis described herself as a lifelong Democrat and called the president a "phenomenal speaker." She voted for him because she "believed in what he was saying: change."

But, Lewis added, "I should've listened a lot closer when he talked about 'spreading the wealth.' "

Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said "I feel lied to, cheated and raped."

That pretty much sums up the feeling of a lot of people. Barack Obama is the perfect example of the famous quote, "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made." Obama is the master of faking sincerity. He has lied to so many people on so many different subjects it is amazing that anyone still believes anything that he says. However a large number of Democrats still do.

I think there is another famous quote by Barnum about that.

Doctor Tells Obama Supporters: Go Elsewhere For Health Care

by Stephen Hudak - April 2nd, 2010 - Orlando Sentinel

A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care "elsewhere."

"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

The sign reads: "If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

I am flabbergasted at the number of people who say that health care is a "right", not a "privilege". The only logical conclusion to that delusion is that doctors and nurses must provide health care for whatever the patient is willing to pay. The many greedy bloodsuckers who vote Democrat don't care that it is a lot less than Doctors think is fair.

So who decides? Some government bureaucrat? The Doctor? The patient? How can Democrats be so indifferent to the tyranny inherent in this position?

In most socialized nations the consequences of reactions to this tyranny means long lines, poor quality health care, government bureaucrats choosing who gets health care first, or choosing who gets it at all. In those countries people die waiting for care. Does it matter if medicine can cure you if the care comes too late? Dead is dead.

Yet there are idiots who insist all this can be managed. What actually happens is that the best people stop studying medicine. Quality of care plummets. Then the left wingers demand that government simply must take over more control and force these people to provide good care. Instead quality goes down again and tyranny increases. You cannot force people to do quality work. It never happens. As soon as you try, work slows down while they make sure that they have done nothing that can be blamed on them and more people die while they are waiting for care.

We know this. It has happened every time socialized medicine has been tried. Only the most basic of care is provided in an acceptable fashion. That is why the death rate from all complex illnesses are much higher everywhere but here in America, which until now has had the greatest health care system in the world.

Doctors will quit the profession. Others will choose never to join. Another obvious reaction is Doctors who don't quit, but simply take off for rest and recreation a lot of the time. Everything is not random. There are patterns to care that will allow Doctors to go on vacation during the times when the poor need them the most. Are Democrats going to force Doctors to work when they want? No socialized medicine nation has yet had the arrogance to go to that level of tyranny, but don't bet that the greedy bloodsuckers of the Democrat Party will not be the first.

What is happening with ObamaCare is insane, yet there are a huge number of Americans proving Santayana correct. ""Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." "All that we learn from history is that we do not learn."

Nothing is more stupid than believing that medical care is any more of a "right" than a right to steak for dinner. If everyone has a right to steak whether the farmer feels the price is fair or not, there will soon be no cows.

Drilling Plan Opens New Areas But Halts Alaska Sales

By Kara Rowland and Stephen Dinan - April 1st, 2010 - The Washington Times

President Obama's new offshore drilling plan opens up some new areas for oil and gas exploration but also cancels some Alaska lease sales planned for the next two years, putting billions of barrels of oil out of reach for now.

The long-awaited plan, announced Wednesday, expands drilling opportunities off the coast of the southern Atlantic seaboard, in the Gulf of Mexico and some parts of Alaska, but halts other future sales in Alaska's Chukchi and Beaufort seas that drilling advocates say could account for far more oil than the new areas the president proposes to open up.

As usual where this President is concerned, anything that he does has an element of deceit in it. The left wing radical President placates his extremist base by stopping already planned oil sales that they oppose. He is also able to screw over the state of Alaska in the process, getting some psychic satisfaction out of indirectly opposing the hated Sarah Palin.

The areas that he is supposedly opening up will take many years longer to bring to production, and Obama actually has the option of doing with those exactly what he is doing with Alaska in this round, waiting until the leases are about to be executed several years down the road and simply stopping the process again. His plan is clearly delay, delay, delay...

This entire public relations effort is really a dodge to stall the production of oil here in America to appease Obama's environmental wacko supporters. It is not intended to actually increase oil production here in America - to either reduce our imports or lower our costs. Obama and his radical left wing environmental supporters still oppose that. Nothing but green energy will be permitted in any serious way as long as Obama is President.