"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face." - Thomas Sowell
Freedom and liberty are the foundation of America. This love of freedom requires that freedom for others be just as important as freedom for you. Today this commitment to freedom is being superceded by a constant government expansion that will leave all of us subservient to the power of bureaucrats.
“The first thing we started to do was look at houses with more than six voters in them" Engelbrecht said, because those houses were the most likely to have fraudulent registrations attached to them. "Most voting districts had 1,800 if they were Republican and 2,400 of these houses if they were Democratic . . .
"But we came across one with 24,000, and that was where we started looking."
Their work paid off. Two weeks ago the Harris County voter registrar took their work and the findings of his own investigation and handed them over to both the Texas secretary of state’s office and the Harris County district attorney.
Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid.
Americans are still having difficulty in dealing with the reality that there is a global socialist movement dedicated to destroying America. This global socialist movement is at war with America. It is heavily union based. One of the most active fifth column organizations here in America which supports this movement is the SEIU. They are not a union. They are a political movement dedicated to the destruction of what most citizens see as American exceptionalism. Unless Americans wake up, ACORN and the SEIU will destroy us. They are actively working to do so. How else do you think a vacant lot has 8 registered voters hypothetically living there and voting records indicated they all voted in the last election.
When so many elections here in America are won by less than 1,000 votes, you only need a couple of thousand illegal votes to steal any election. The evidence collected indicates 20,000 NEW illegal voters were registered in ONE DISTRICT!
The litany of abuses listed in this article are not anecdotal evidence of an anomaly that is occurring in Houston alone. They are typical of the vote subversion that is occurring all across America. Just as the progressive movement has subverted our schools and the media, they have subverted the voting process as well. Democratic selection of our representatives has become a farce. In any close election, Democrats will steal any election by the techniques of illegal voting described in this article. The Democrat rationalization is simple. Since they are the democratic party, stealing an election is simply democracy in action.
Any doubt should be erased by the fire that occurred the day after this voter irregularity was announced. The day after! How likely is it that the voting equipment of the suspect district just "happened" to burn when the investigation was about to get serious? Now the local effort is focused on the crisis of setting up a new voting process by November, not investigating the previous crimes. How convenient for the SEIU.
by Frank Luntz - September 26, 2010 - The Washington Post
I didn't write the "Contract With America." I didn't even name it. But I was the pollster who "messaged" it, testing how voters responded to the language. And I have always been proud of how that document contributed to the Republican landslide in 1994 and how it served as an organizing plan for congressional Republicans in 1995.
This past Thursday, House Republicans unveiled their own "Pledge to America," which, according to GOP House Whip Eric Cantor, is meant to "change the culture of Washington, returning power, control and money back to the people where it belongs." I wasn't involved with this document, but I have moderated almost 50 instant-response focus groups with thousands of voters this year, and I do have a good idea of what they really want.
The future of American politics is totally bound up with where the Tea Party movement goes after the elections of this November. No matter the outcome, their "Core Values" commitment has become the focus of much of the campaigning in this years critical elections. Those three core values, "Fiscal responsibility", "Free markets" and "Constitutional government", have resonated because they are so clearly what America stands for. These are not everything that America stands for. They are however the most serious issues we need to address before we can tackle other issues.
I personally appreciated the value of this assessment by Luntz of what he sees as value in the "pledge" Republicans are taking. Here are my thoughts on the Luntz assessment.
His first assessment is on wording. Luntz feels it needs to be a "commitment" not a "pledge". I agree. Words do matter. Next election we need to make our commitment clear.
Second assessment. I do not agree with Luntz that bipartisan is a direction that we need to follow when bipartisan is defined as "increase the size of government but at a slower rate than Democrats want." We need to change the dialog. Deny bipartisanship when all it means is slow surrender to big government. Explain why. Absolutely refuse to support bipartisan actions when surrender is all it means.
Third assessment. As a preamble, nothing can be better than "America is more than a country. America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration of Independence from which these words are paraphrased is as much a part of our social contract as the Constitution. We need to stick with this standard preamble until we have our country back.
Fourth assessment. The laundry list of the pledge is too long and too high level. next election we need to make our "commitment" specific and targeted.
Fifth assessment. We need to conclude using the words from the "contract" - "If we break this contract, throw us out. We mean it." Whether a pledge or a commitment, documents like the "contract" and the "pledge" are always "A Call To Action." To make the final step in the pledge a vague call to action weakens it. Let's return to the bold and emphatic language of the "contract."
The most important issue is that the The Tea Party movement needs to start thinking where we are going after November. A commitment by the Tea Party movement to the specific steps we support in the next elections is a perfect solution. It should come well before the last moments of the 2012 elections. We need to keep rallying our people for the entire two years coming up. Start as soon as the dust settles. Finish it quickly.
According to most physicians, pot is less toxic -- and has more medicinal applications -- than a legal and more pervasive drug like alcohol. Whereas alcohol causes hundreds of annual overdose deaths, contributes to untold numbers of illnesses and is a major factor in violent crime, the use of marijuana has never resulted in a fatal overdose and has not been systemically linked to major illness or violent behavior.
This effort to legalize marijauna is fascinating. I concur with Sirota that major opposition is coming from the alcohol industry. It is bizarre to see churches, parents and this industry working together.
As a libertarian, I am inclined toward the belief that it is not the responsibility of government to criminalize behavior that only indirectly harms society. I concur that it is just to keep some behavior out of public view so that parents do not have to fight its corrupting influence on their children. In that regard, all vices (drugs, gambling and sex) should be limited to keep them out of public view. To go further and attempt to ban adults from the behavior is to invite the same consequences for society that happened during the period of prohibition, after the 18th Amendment banned alcohol "... it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity."
The profits from the illegal sale of a reduced amount of alcohol during prohibition funded massive expansion of crime in other regards. The small reduction in the use of alcohol overall thus paved the way for much worse damage to society as a whole. The current "war on drugs" has had the exact same effect. Drug cartels, both inside and outside of our nation have driven overall crime higher and created the horrible reality that our kids are more exposed to drugs than they would be if the "war on drugs" had never existed.
It is time for our society to end the unitended consequencs of our efforts. It should never be the responsibility of government to ban adult behavior that harms only the individual directly, no matter the indirect harm to society. Alcohol is tolerated but a less damaging drug is treated with harsh penalties because of cultural attitudes. This is not just. This is not beneficial. This is not rational. This is not moral.
Vices should only be dealt with as civil violations and never above the local level of government. The federal and state governments should be banned from legislating morality and limitations on any vice. Let local governments prohibit public advertising or public acts of vices while taxing them in private situations. Vice would be less profitable, less harmful to society and generate more public funds as a result. Our society and our children would be vastly better off and the greater freedom would clearly be better for the individual. Currently crime cartels make huge profits from vices and fund worse activities with their wealth. One example? The current effort by the cartels to steal money by identity theft.
We have already seen this story once. Why will we not learn from the history of prohibition? End the war on drugs.
The Justice Department is ignoring civil rights cases that involve white victims and wrongly abandoned a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party last year, a top department official testified Friday. He called the department's conduct a "travesty of justice."
It was. Even worse is the reality that neither Christian Adams, the gentleman who previously testified, or the official testifying yesterday, Christoper Coates, were permitted to testify by the Obama Administration. Obama did everything he could to stop them. Adams had to quit his job, and Coates testified under protection of whistle blower laws after he was ordered NOT to testify. Obama has fought to keep this incident hidden for more than a year.
Not only is the Obama DOJ racist, they are fighting to keep their racist agenda hidden from the public. With the November 2nd elections coming up, it is frightening to realize, the Obama DOJ will be controlling what happens in voter intimidation cases. Both the SEIU, already guilty of beating up Tea Party members, and the New Black Panther Party, the group given a free pass in the incident from the last election, know exactly where they stand. Free to intimidate who they please.
by L.E. Ikenga - September 22nd, 2010 - The American Thinker
A comment on the background to this article is required. Forbes started a major discussion on Obama's motivations with, "How Obama Thinks" by Dinesh d'Souza. The White House was incensed by that article. Their response is covered in the Washington Post by Howard Kurtz's, "White House rips Forbes article". George Neumayr added some insight with an alternative theory in his article "Neocolonial Dreams from Obama's Mother"in The American Spectator. At issue in these articles is d'Souza's argument that Obama is motivated by an outdated opposition to fighting colonialism and it's residual impact on the former European colonies, a concept called anti-colonialism in socialist college circles. Anti-colonialism was the driving motivation of his father. Obama alluded to his adoption of this theme for his own thought processes in his biography, "Dreams from my Father". It clearly is one of his motivations. At issue is whether it is the primary motivation.
Several articles have been written in response criticizing d'Souza. It seemed useless to link to most of them since they are motivated by nothing but an attempt to smear anyone who dares think or write about what motivates Obama. I don't understand why so many think this is a topic that should be off limits.
However Ikenga has provided some useful guidance with an alternative hypothesis to the two already discussed above. At the least, Ikenga is not opposed to the idea that thinking about Obama's motivations is worthwhile.
In his article, Ikenga believes it is more likely that Obama has picked up the motivations of the "New Global Elite" on steroids - rather than being motivated by anti-colonialism as d'Souza claimed. Ikenga thinks Obama is a "multicultural globalist". It is an interesting hypothesis. His article includes insight to the relationship between the post-colonialist movement, (an actual movement that only insiders in black studies at our leading universities used to know about) and its morphing into the new "multicultural globalist" movement that has aspects of black liberation theology, socialism (or progressivism if you prefer), anti-colonialism, post-colonialism, anti-nationalism and Alinsky worship.
It is worth reading just for insight into the fevered search by those on the left for an intellectual underpinning for their hatred of free enterprise and white culture.
Obama's radical ambitions continue to go mostly unnoticed by the masses because Mr. Obama and those who think like him appear to be something that we are all familiar with: global elites, or as they like to call themselves, "citizens of the world." And this is where, going back to Mr. D'Souza's article, he gets it all wrong. Barack Obama is not, as he says, "the last of the anti-colonialists."
What Mr. D'Souza fails to understand is that post-colonialism ceased being a cantankerous "cause" or a "crusade" a long time ago. Instead, it now identifies a new way of thinking about the world in global terms. Post-colonialists have long since stopped attending "Reparations Now!" rallies and academic "roundtables" on race and politics. They are now the heads of liberally backed NGOs, Ivy League Institutes, or countries like the United States.
Barack Obama is a 21st-century example of a multicultural globalist -- fairly young, trendy "people of color," "well-educated," belonging to no specific tribe or cultural group (or openly shunning such memberships), obsessed with bourgeois leisure culture, moderately wealthy, and very successful in their respective professions. Barack Obama and his compatriots are those who "grew up" and, having abandoned their black turtlenecks, berets, and expensive, imported cigarettes, swapped their former post-colonial ideological talking points for ones that now appear thoughtful, pragmatic, and less antagonistic toward "oppressive capitalist systems." They calmly advocate the use of "smart power" to create "commonsense solutions for working families." But don't be fooled -- copies of "Black Skin, White Masks" still rest on their nightstands.
That so much energy is put into rationalizing black hatred for white culture, as this article indicates has happened, will probably surprise most average Americans. That we elected a President who can actually participate in discussions about these issues and has studied them should be more shocking. That indicates he thinks that the hate is rational and worthy of study. Whether he is an anti-colonialist, a post-colonialist or has moved on to the more enlightened multicultural-globalist as Ikenga believes, the key point is Obama is driven by a well concealed hate. My question. How can it possibly be that only now are these discussions taking place about motivations of the man who holds the most powerful position in the world?
What is truly amazing is how wrong so many politicians are, about what they think the Tea Party Movement represents, and their illusions about how to, as they call it, "use the movement." This is true of both Democrat and Republican leadership.
At least one problem I have with this book's apparent premise that more democracy will solve the problem, is the illusion that "the people" can agree. America is currently divided into two warring camps. In one camp are people who want government to become more "democratic" so they can vote themselves free services that others pay for. In the other camp are people who are tired of being taxed and regulated and want government to stop doing the very things that the other camp loves. They want the limited government that our Constitution promised. The second camp is what the Tea Party represents. They are fighting for limited government and individual liberty.
This book to explain the Tea Party Movement has actually proven the authors do not understand the Tea Party well at all. The Tea Party movement is most assuredly not looking for more democracy, more voting for a free ride! That is one reason that the outcome of the November elections will not the end this war. It will only be the bell that starts round two of this championship fight. Whoever loses will immediately start efforts to oppose the results. These two camps are in a battle to the death.
By embracing radical decentralization, tea party activists intend to rewrite the rule book for political organizing.
by Jonathan Rauch - September 11th, 2010 - National Journal Magazine
The tea party began as a network, not an organization, and that is what it mostly remains. Disillusioned with President Bush's Republicans and disheartened by President Obama's election, in late 2008 several dozen conservatives began chattering on social-networking sites such as Top Conservatives on Twitter and Smart Girl Politics. Using those resources and frequent conference calls (the movement probably could not have arisen before the advent of free conference calling), they began to talk about doing something. What they didn't realize was that they were already doing something. In the very act of networking, they were printing the circuitry for a national jolt of electricity.
The spark came on February 19, 2009, when a CNBC journalist named Rick Santelli aired a diatribe against the bank bailout. "That," Meckler says, "was our source code." The next day, the networkers held a conference call and decided to stage protests in a few cities just a week later. No one was more astonished than the organizers when the network produced rallies in about 50 cities, organized virtually overnight by amateurs. Realizing that they had opened a vein, they launched a second round of rallies that April, this time turning out perhaps 600,000 people at more than 600 events.
Experienced political operatives were blown away. "It was inconceivable in the past" to stage so many rallies so quickly, in so many places, without big budgets for organizers and entertainment, says Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a longtime political organizer.
This is the new format for political organizations. Money is important. Enthusiasm is more important. Ideas lead to enthusiasm. The exchange of ideas is what the Internet and networking are all about.
At the recent CNBC Forum, one black speaker acquired a huge amount of personal fame. Her name is Velma Hart. What she said to Obama was; "I'm one of your middle-class Americans, and quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I've been told that I voted for a man who was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I'm one of those people, sir, and I'm waiting. And I don't feel it yet."
She wants more government handouts. What is bizarre is this speaker is not herself a productive member of society, but CFO of one of the numerous government grant based non profit corporations who front for government and spend our taxes on handouts. Her entire career has been in the community organizing field from which Barack Obama came. Gaining and distributing government freebies is her reason to work. To her 'middle class' means government and non profit employees who redistribute the wealth.
It is predictable that the same media and newspapers who ridiculed "Joe the Plumber" and his opposition to "redistribution of wealth" are now lionizing "Velma the CFO" and her slavish devotion to the same concept.
Martin Luther King, Jr. once talked of caring more about character than the color of skin. Yet today, most in the black community predominantly care about skin color more than any other attribute. It has to be black. Character does not matter. 40 years of affirmative action has made this worse, not better. This failure to admire character is a major part of the collapse of the family in the black community.
This less than 12% of our population has demanded affirmative action so often it has now led to the point where nearly 50% of actors on commercials are black, to satisfy their constant demands for black recognition. Blacks are a minor part of our nation yet you would never know it if you watched TV.
Our postal service has twice as many blacks as the percentage of the population would justify, approaching 23%. This double representation holds true for black women too, yet white women are under-represented in the postal service by half. This under representation comes from excessive representation of minorities overall. White men are the same percentage in the Postal Service as they are in the population as a whole. Yet with the constant haranguing about "white men" by black organizations and race promoters you would never believe they are not the problem. White women suffer as a result.
This 12% of our population represents 25% of the coaches in NFL football, yet this is not enough. Because 70% of the players are black, the goalpost has been moved to require that 70% of coaches be black too. The black dominated player's union demands it. What is there about the skin color of black that means they would make better coaches? Just curious.
This over representation by blacks is typical in government but has been demanded in business as well. In states where the percentage of blacks is small, the national percentage of blacks has still been legally ordered by Judges to be the quota goal for businesses that have never practiced discrimination ever. It does not matter. They have been found guilty of de facto segregation by their accusers misusing statistics and punished for something they never did.
Other evidence that most blacks see skin color and race as the deciding factor in almost everything they do? Until Barack Obama ran for President, 14% to 15% of blacks voted for the Republican candidates in most elections. Two thirds of these hypothetically conservative individuals voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Only 5% of blacks voted for Republicans that year. They did not care what Obama believed. Nor did they care about his character. They only cared about the color of his skin.
There is a lot of talk about reverse discrimination out of the public view. Yet there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it or end it even where it is proved because our government only recognizes discrimination against blacks and other "minorities." Like the minority called women, who make up 52% of our population. To call the largest segment of our population a 'minority' is the bizarre result of legislating to accomplish special privileges for some by suppressing the rights of others.
When this was done to suppress the rights of blacks it was considered abhorrent. It was. When this is done to suppress the rights of white males it is considered 'justice'. It isn't. Why is it tolerated?
Velma Hart reminds me of Peggy Joseph, the black woman who gushed on the famous YouTube Video about supporting Obama after attending a rally for him, "It was the most memorable time of my life... because... I never thought the day would ever happen, I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage... You know, if I help him he's gonna help me."
We have been warned repeatedly throughout history of the consequences of democracy turning in to a process by which the mob votes for free services and special privileges. It always destroys the wealth of the nation. It always will.
One related concern - the topic of reverse discrimination is still considered off limits by the black community. By entrenching the superior rights of blacks under the legal concept of affirmative action, public discourse on justice has been subverted as well. Free government paid services are demanded as a right under affirmative action. Oppose them and you are a racist! This is a risky argument. There is a growing backlash against getting a free ride through welfare. What was intended as a helping hand cannot become a permanent right to a free ride. There is also a growing backlash against affirmative action. Government cannot continue to entrench permanent superior rights for some because of injustices that have ended. The injustice was government ordered discrimination against blacks. That has not existed for 40 years. Two generations!
The election of Barack Obama has changed the public dialog. He is black. He is President. The consequences for the black community are only starting to be felt. If a demand for more freebies and more affirmative action is the result in the black community, they are isolating themselves from the major forces in our country. These are moving in the opposite direction.
“Bridge builder” Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf, the Muslim cleric behind plans for the Ground Zero mosque, has now been exposed as a man of shrewd cunning and as a calculating stealth jihadist who supports the creation of an Islamic State, “The Ummah,” right here in America.
An interview has surfaced in which, after being assured that it has ended, Imam Rauf speaks “off-the-record” and reveals some intriguing plans and views that he has regarding America and the world. The interview, given on June 20th, 2006, sees Rauf speaking about his “game plan” for achieving an Islamic State without borders, which — in his mind — has previously existed and should have continued to exist, if not for Western interference in the last century. The Ground Zero mosque imam also discusses some of his other objectives which include: (1) manipulating U.S. foreign policy, (2) advocating for Hamas and (3) getting “power” on his side to push back the opposing “interests.”
America needs to wake up. The Ground Zero Mosque is a serious part of an on-going plan to subvert our Constitutional Republic and destroy our freedoms. Only three options are provided under Islam; Convert and become a Muslim, death - preferably by beheading, or the slavery Muslims call dhimmitude for non-believers who submit to their dominance.
If you are not ready to fight Islam now, you need to decide; when they are your rulers, which of their options will you choose?
After an unusually sharp slowdown in trading this summer, analysts are rethinking their profit forecasts for 2010.
The activities at the heart of what Wall Street does — selling and trading stocks and bonds, and advising on mergers — are running at levels well below where they were at this point last year, said Meredith Whitney, a bank analyst who was among the first to warn of the subprime mortgage disaster and its impact on big banks.
“What’s happened in the third quarter is that after a very slow summer, people expected things to come back,” said Ms. Whitney. “But they haven’t, and the inactivity is really squeezing everyone.”
The downward slide on Wall Street parallels a similar shift in the broader economy, which has slowed considerably since showing signs of a nascent recovery this spring. And if banks come under pressure, all but the safest borrowers may struggle to get loans.
Even the strongest economy in the world cannot withstand a determined effort by it's primary leader, the President of the United States, to "redistribute wealth" and destroy free enterprise.
General Motors and Chrysler are now owned by the UAW, after secured bond holders were illegally stripped of their rights. The government bureaucrats who tell these companies what to do are demanding the least cost effective cars, electric, be the focus of all future efforts.
Our money system has remained under a sustained assault from the Federal Reserve system to devalue our currency and force people to spend. This has discouraged investors from spending money on anything but hard assets that will withstand the coming inflation. The last thing you do in such an environment is hire people that government will not allow you to fire.
The natural cycle of recovery has been undercut by sustained government wasting of tax dollars on useless welfare programs, including sending billions overseas at a time when America itself needs the funds.
Such a sustained program has always generated third world failure. The same program destroyed Argentina. It was rapidly doing the same to England until Margaret Thatcher stepped in and changed course. Carter was well on his way to destroying America the last time this idiocy was tried here. We are looking at a serious and prolonged challenge to restore our economy, and Barack Obama still does not get it.
I am surprised that Wall Street is surprised. Wall Street gave 74% of their campaign contributions to Barack Obama and the Democrats in the last election cycle. They are still giving 66% of their money to pro-socialism Democrats. Do you really think they do not know what they are getting? I guarantee George Soros is not surprised... nor disappointed either. Corporate socialism is his goal.
Sorry about the NY Times login - they didn't used to require you to register!
by J.R. Dunn - September 20th, 2010 - The American Thinker
The Tea Party victories of last week have clearly revealed the movement for what it actually is: not a tantrum, not a voter mutiny, not a short-term insurrection, but something never actually seen before in this country -- it is a counter-revolution.
I agree the Tea Party movement is a counter revolution. It is in direct opposition to the ongoing socialist (or progressive) revolution that Obama is trying to complete. His "fundamental transformation" is the culmination of a hundred year war to destroy what America once stood for. What has this progressive revolution accomplished? It has subverted academia and destroyed our schools, taken over our media to mistate anything that challenges their ideology, insinuated itself into our government agencies to oppose conservatives and deny them equal rights, ridiculed our traditions, challenged our morals and attacked belief in God. They have promoted nihilism and the belief that there is no wrong or right, just different views of what is considered good. A number of our people have accepted this new view of government as prefereable for them, since they have no understanding of the costs of such a culture. They just love the freebies they receive.
Only the structures of our Constitution and its limitations on government power have stood between the advocates of tyranny and their desire for complete control of our lives. Obama believes he is the 'chosen one' to complete the destruction of our form of government and implement the total takeover of our nation by the power of Washington led by his radical czars. He is well on his way to sweeping away the Constitutional impediments to a total victory by the progressives.
That is the reality that the Tea Party movement is tackling. The progressive revolution must be stopped. The reality is the Republican Party has not truly been a countervailing force to the desires of Democrats to finish the revolution that has been occurring for the last hundred years. Republican leadership is complicit in the revolution. That revolution is so close to its success that a leader as weak and intolerable as Barack Obama can realistically aspire to bringing about its final victory over our nation. Since the Republican Party clearly cannot be entrusted to resist, the Tea Party movement has risen up to fight the counter revolution.
That puts the leadership of both parties in the line of fire of the Tea Party goals. Karl Rove is a perfect example of the resulting confusion. He does not get it because he does not accept that his "slow acquiescence" is not acceptable to those who oppose the revolution. The single issue obsessions of most social conservatives are also being ignored because they are irrelevant to the restoration of our Republican form of Constitutional governance. Actually the social conservative agenda is nearly as destructive of our form of governance as the progressive goals. It is the counter revolution and the restoration of liberty that stands first and foremost as the goal of the Tea Party movement.
That is a long term goal that will not end with a few short term political victories in November. The movement will go on until we are once again solidly committed to being a nation of freedom.
... Mr Boehner's life story is the type of classic up-by-the-bootstraps tale of the American Dream that can put a tear in a voter's eye. As his story becomes better known, the Democrats could even be drawing favourable attention upon him... The alleged elitist country club Republican is an Ohio Congressman who grew up in near poverty.
His sister Lynda Meineke, who is 51, is a waitress and bar tender at Andy's Cafe in Carthage, Ohio, a family business that was founded by their grandfather Andy Boehner in 1938. As a child, one of Mr Boehner's jobs was to mop the floor.
Perhaps that is why he was not ashamed to work as a janitor when it was the best job he could find while going to college. The more I learn about John Boehner, the more I like him. In one regard he reminds me of Ronald Reagan. People who know him all like him. He fits in well with any group of guys who hang around talking sports. Like most men he is competitive. He plays a mean round of golf, rumored to have an 8 handicap. He seems to be personally highly ethical, aggressively opposing the excessive spending, earmarks and pork of the Hastert years.
He also worked his way up within a single company, moving from entry level salesman to President. That is impressive to anyone who has ever been involved in the politics within any company. You have to be talented, loyal, hard working and well liked to pull it off. Success in business is important. We need more politicians who understand what it is to meet a payroll.
On the negative side, Boehner is clearly too entangled with the crony capitalist wing of the party, supports the desire by business to keep illegal immigration going, voted for Bush' bailouts and thinks that his support for "no child left behind" was his "proudest achievement".
He certainly isn't a moderate, yet he is also clearly not as much of a libertarian as Reagan. This battle with Obama should prove interesting, as much as anything, because Obama does not do his homework. That Obama thought it worthwhile to insult Boehner's skin color is perhaps indicative of how out of touch with reality Obama is. Boehner's sister sniggered at the suggestion her brother might ever have been on a tanning bed. The "dark hair and olive skin", she said, came from her mother. It is his natural color.
Whatever I or anyone else thinks about Mr. Beck's programming or political views, on one central historical issue he is correct: The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic.
... in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle—"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"—to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members... "
Theodore Roosevelt... in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910... said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached.
The subtle differences between socialism, progressivism, liberalism, fascism, communism, marxism, are all degrees of tyranny that make little real difference to those whose freedoms are destroyed to benefit the "greater society." Every enthusiastic supporter of these 'isms' see only the ideological greatness of their Utopian dream. In every case they remain indifferent to the costs to individuals. They also remain stubbornly indifferent to the reality that their Utopias are never an improvement over the free society that the founding fathers created here in America.
Freedom under capitalism and free enterprise provides so much more wealth that ultimately even the poor are better off in absolute terms than under the evil tyranny of the 'isms'. However no system can ever provide enough wealth that those on the bottom stop envying those who are better off. Hatred of the middle class, hidden under the pretense it is hatred of the rich, always drives the public dialog. The Utopia of these tyrannies also requires, as it has in every country in which it has been tried, a bloodbath to purge from the nation's gene pool those who are determined to live free.
The resistance of the Tea Party movement to the growing tyranny in our nation enrages those on the left for that reason. They see their Utopian dream slipping away as people reject their beliefs. The left is either going to win or they will demand that those who oppose them are purged. I would not presume to believe America will be any different from prior experience. History rarely fails to provide the lessons that predict the future, even when people refuse to believe the evidence.
by Jonathan Karl and Gregory Simmons - September 13th, 2010 - ABC News
With an assist from Sarah Palin, tea party activists in Delaware are trying to defeat the Republican candidate with the best chance to win Joe Biden's old Senate seat and nominate instead a candidate Republican leaders say has no chance of winning the general election in November.
Rep. Mike Castle is considered a slam dunk to capture Joe Biden's old Senate seat. Castle is a pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control Republican who often works with Democrats.
One of the issues on which Castle "works with Democrats" is on the insane issue of cap-and-tax. Man is not causing global warming. Cutting carbon dioxide would not help even if we were. So why on earth would any sane person work with the Democrats to tax "carbon" and create a scam to buy "carbon credits". It has already been proven that the companies selling these credits are lying about the credits that they claim. The entire cap-and-tax process is a monumental scam.
Since Mike Castle supports cap-and-tax, the right to abortion, denies that the second amendment protects the right to "bear arms", and generally is more "progressive" than many Democrats, what is the justification for supporting him?
Christine O'Donnell is a conservative. She is not an extremist.
Mike Castle is not a "moderate". Mike Castle is a progressive. He is also an extremist.
Republican leadership has attacked O'Donnell every step of the way. They like their power, not conservative principles. "I have no doubt if she by some miracle became the nominee she would lose the seat by unprecedented numbers," Delaware Republican Party chairman Tom Ross said. This is his excuse to support the left wing extremist Castle. Both Castle and Ross have to go. They are not Republicans. They are corrupt politicians in the wrong party. Exactly the kind of people who have betrayed America for two generations by interfering in the Republican primaries to sell out conservatives and patriots.
Two mottoes from the American Revolution are making a strong comeback; "Don't tread on me!" and "Live Free or Die!" Both echo the new theme that the Tea Party is jamming down the throats of the professional politicians who have taken over the Republican Party and betrayed our principles. "We don't want your kind in our party." Corrupt politicians might as well become Democrats. We will no longer tolerate you stabbing us in the back from inside our party.
Thanks, Mr. President, for that kind introduction.
by Fred Barnes - September 20, 2010 (Publication date) - The Weekly Standard
Boehner is more formidable than Obama probably thinks. He benefits from his experience when Republicans controlled the House after the 1994 Republican landslide. He learned two lessons, according to [Rep. Paul] Ryan: not to make a promise you can’t keep and not to allow “the majority to atrophy.” Republicans lost their majority when “incumbent protection and an earmark culture” became an obsession, Ryan says, and Boehner was “singed by his experience.” If Boehner becomes House speaker, that won’t happen again, Ryan insists.
Though I had not previously been a John Boehner fan, believing him to be part of the gullible Republican leadership, this article by Fred Barnes has caused me to look at Boehner with a different perspective.
Barnes is not always the best person to listen to, however he does speak for a lot of conservatives. Barnes was not always a Hastert fan and he had criticism for Republicans when they started spending money with abandon. If Boehner is not a neo-progressive Republican in the mold of Rove, Bush and Hastert, he may be better than I had hoped. However it has not seemed that those who support Boehner believe as Barnes claims he does. The other Republican leaders around Boehner have viciously attacked anyone from the Tea Party movement.
I guess we will see.
Though Fred probably does not see it as food for comment, I did love the insult that Obama threw at John Boehner for being "a person of color", speaking sarcastically about his constant tan. I just wonder what Obama's reaction would be if anyone made a joke about his own skin color? The other joke about the Obama attacks on Boehner is even more humorous, "It is clear that Obama desperately needs someone new to attack since 'It's Bush's fault' is no longer working." I love it!
The reality is that the issues in the black community are pretty well known. From the article:
Lack of information, fear of high costs, a mistrust of the medical establishment and a paucity of relatives who are healthy enough to donate are reasons Browne said contribute to the transplant disparity.
So the reason has nothing to do with racism! Bet a thousand dollars that is not what you would have believed based on the headline. I also bet a thousand dollars that will not be the reasons touted in the report from the $400,000 grant that is being sought to "research" the reasons.
The purpose of the title was to stoke racial hate against whites. That will be the same purpose of the study. Affirmative action has been used to assure blacks get an education even when a poor white is more intelligent. The black has a right! Affirmative action has been used to assure blacks get a job even when a poor white is better qualified. The black has a right! Now, affirmative action will be used to assure blacks get a kidney even when it is coming from a relative of a poor white. If no relative of the black will give up his kidney, then some white will be ordered to give up his kidney. The black has a right! We have a government that destroys the rights of whites to assure that blacks succeed. The KKK did the same thing to keep whites on top. Why is it that blacks and our judiciary cannot see the current racist agenda of our laws is no different.
It is truly sad. In the last couple of years racism has started to balloon. Blacks are more open about their hate for whites. As I was told by one black, "A black man is President. It is our turn on top." Whites, most of whom had long since abandoned any racism, are starting to build grudges of their own against the "entitled" blacks. The headline of this article does nothing to address the fact that EVERYTHING cannot be about race - or it aggravates racism. If that 12% of America who are black do not see the growing backlash, they are going to regret it. 95% of blacks voted for Barack Obama. Colin Powell, a man who attained higher rank than 99.99% of whites will ever attain, turned out to be a white hating racist black who voted for Obama based on the color of his skin. No white with intelligence will ever concede that Colin Powell has a right to whine about the color of his skin.
by Victoria Toensing - September 13th, 2010 - National Review
Supporters of the proposed $100 million Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan argue that it offers moderate Muslims an opportunity to practice their faith and become ambassadors of Islam to America. Yet the little-known history of Washington, D.C.’s Islamic Center shows how the entity controlling the purse strings can transform even a moderate ecumenical institution into a mouthpiece for Wahhabism, an intolerant form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism is a branch of Islam like Baptist is a branch of Christianity. Except for minor issues Wahhabism does not vary far from the beliefs of the other branches of Islam, even if it is more dedicated to the Muslim form of "evangelical outreach". What is of more concern is that ALL forms of Islam are more dedicated to converting infidels than any branch of the Christian faith.
The problem? Islam uses a slightly more emphatic form of outreach. Convert or die.
You have to be an avid reader of news about Islam to notice the occasional article reporting such things as the conviction of cleric Ali Al-Timimi. "In 2005, a U.S. federal court in Virginia sentenced Timimi to life in prison after convicting him of ten counts related to terrorism, including soliciting fighters to wage war against the United States and counseling others to aid the Taliban." It is probably no longer possible to get such a conviction as fear of the Islamic hate mongers recedes as more time passes after 9/11.
It is frightening that America has such a short memory. It may be this short memory that condemns us to the coming nuclear holocaust.
by Kathryn Jean Lopez - September 13th, 2010 - National Review
From the beginning of his presidency, Obama has not been fond of critics, real or imagined. And make no mistake: Some of the critics he talks about are pure strawmen — the critics he broad-brushes without naming names, and the ones he names only to add the most manipulative mischaracterizations of what they really stand for. From early on, he reportedly had the audacity to ask elected officials, directly, not to take him on publicly. His version of bipartisanship is that you abandon your partisanship. He won the election, as he has reminded us, so hush up and get out of the way. He may call the GOP the party of no, but he’s the party of no tolerance for an opposition.
One more way to say that Barack Hussein Obama is an egomaniac. He is also a threat to American survival.
There are some interesting points in Kathryn's article, but the recent Dinesh d'Souza article (found here) was more useful. The explanation by d'Souza of the anti-colonialist justification for his adoption of Marxism was the best read on Obama that has yet come out.
by Bernie Quigley - September 10th, 2010 - Pundits Blog
President Obama, whom Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger says is beginning to sound like “the most embittered American president this country has ever known,” will not remember 9/11 well this weekend, and it will mar his presidency.
He will be at the wrong place at the wrong time. He will make it feel that in some insidious way it was somehow our fault, as so much seems to be our fault now.
No surprise there. To Barack Obama, everything is the fault of the evil Americans.
There. I have said it. I do not doubt that Barack Obama hates the nation I love. Barack Obama wants to fundamentally transform the richest and greatest nation on earth. What he has not yet figured out is that everything he believes is wrong.
He thought that we could spend our way to prosperity. He has failed and in the process he has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The litany of things on which Obama is wrong is not worth documenting here. For the issue is not that Barack Obama is wrong. The issue is that millions of Americans could listen to him chastise our nation and think that it was right to vote for him.
I wonder if they will praise Obama for his insistence we must "forget" 9/11 and "put it behind us." This war with Islam will not end just because Obama does not want to fight it. Cowards, like Obama (and the people who voted for him) do not win wars. They lose them. It is going to be a challenge for America to win a war when the man who is supposed to lead us - will not - can not - lead.
Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” By that definition, President Obama has gone insane. Or perhaps he’s not so much insane as he is just suffering from a bout of memory loss. Does he not remember how badly his previous effort at pumping money into the economy went? Nevertheless, here we are, a year and a half later, and creeping unemployment remains undeterred by the federal government’s intervention. And yet the president is pitching another stimulus.
Insane? Good question.
This article is a typical article at this time, arguing by those who have a brain that the brain dead actions of our President and his economic team are insane. Unfortunately, the reaction of those who support Obama is to become outraged that you dare question them. When my grandfather was in an institution because he had become senile, it was tough to visit him. All he wanted to talk about was why he was there. He could not see that he was senile and he demanded to know why anyone thought he was.
When someone insane asks why you think they are insane no answer will be understood.
President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.
He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.
Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.
This is an article that was written earlier this year. At the time it was written it was laughed off because of the belief the overwhelmingly Democrat dominance of Congress would never allow it to happen. Now it is becoming clear that this may be the only way to unwind the socialist horrors that Obama has already illegally jammed down the throat of our nation by his abusive use of czars and Presidential edicts. What frightens me is another reality. More and more Americans are actually coming to the conclusion that having the buffoon Joe Biden as President would be better than letting Obama continue to rule. That alone should tell you how bad things have gotten.
by Phil Izzo - September 3rd, 2010 - Wall Street Journal
The U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.6% in August, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment rose even more to 16.7%, the highest rate since April.
The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs.
By another measure which counts people who live on welfare, receive charity, work at volunteer jobs or help out family or friends in exchange for support, the real unemployment rate is 22.5%. What is true is that by any measure, unemployment is high by traditional standards and getting higher. Yet the press is apparently okay with that if it is Obama who is in charge.
Compare articles touting Obama's unemployment numbers at only 9.6% and going up as "encouraging" with Bush unemployment at 5.5% and going down as "disastrous" - according to the Washington Post and the New York Times. When the recession that started under Clinton (and was aggravated by 9/11) started turning the corner under Bush, absolutely no news was accepted as good enough. It was condemned as "the jobless recovery" even as unemployment fell to historic lows. Today the "stronger than expected" recovery is front page news, even as the recession is barely recovering and unemployment is 9.6% and going up. During the early Bush years, real job growth that lowered unemployment was declared "unacceptable" and "meager".
Obama and his lap dog press will do anything to cover up the pending bankruptcy of our nation. What is really annoying is the way that Obama and the press blame the current recession on the actions that worked during Bush's early years. In reality it was Bush's adoption of progressive stimulus and bailouts in his final two years that started the current mess. Obama doesn't blame those actions though because he approved of them. He blames the earlier actions to lower taxes and increase freedom for the current collapse. I suppose that makes sense to him, but it is bizarre to me. Those actions annoyed Obama because the jobs being created were in the private sector. Obama's "10 years of mistakes caused the current problems" is an attempt to misdirect people from the fact that it was the two years of progressive actions under Bush and two more years under Obama that we really should blame. Bush may have pushed us to the edge of the cliff, but it was clearly Obama who pushed us over and keeps stomping on our finger tips in an effort to make us drop to the bottom.
The press may be pleased with Obama but the American people are not buying the scam.
by Noel Sheppard - September 3rd, 2010 - Newsbusters
Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if top wage earners were taxed at 70 to 90 percent? Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich can, and he thinks it's a great idea.
To be sure, many Americans were concerned that giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of our government during an economic crisis could usher back in socialist tendencies first seen in this nation during the Depression.
Fears of such a leftward shift sparked a new powerful movement called the Tea Party.
With this in mind, Reich's op-ed "How to End the Great Recession" published in Friday's New York Times validates these concerns...
There are so many ways to rephrase Reich's plan. "Kill all investment and grow the economy anyway!" More extreme? "Kill the owners and let workers run the world."
Both are about the same as Robert Reich's solution. It is the typical solution of the radical left wing extremists who have been frustrated for years with their inability to explain the wealth of America when America tolerates the freedom to work hard and keep your earnings. The "workers" in Robert Reich's world don't want to work hard, and resent anyone else making more money than they do. When they get in power they always destroy wealth. Their plan is to redistribute it but their result is to destroy it, making everyone poor.
If we don't change direction quickly, Reich will get his wish, get his plan, get his unintended result.
by J.R. Dieckmann - September 1st, 2010 - Canada Free Press
The Qur’an blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God’s law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state? To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.
Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people? Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in “Dreams Of My Father” - “When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims?” It is always nice to know that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.
Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims - and our own government - can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.
Most rational explanation I have seen on why Islam must be banned from our nation.
by Rich Lowry - September 3rd, 2010 - National Review
The much-analyzed speeches at the Glenn Beck Lincoln Memorial rally weren’t as notable as what the estimated 300,000 attendees did: follow instructions, listen quietly to hours of speeches, and throw out their trash.
Just as stunning as the tableaux of the massive throngs lining the reflecting pool were the images of the spotless grounds afterward. If someone had told attendees they were expected to mow the grass before they left, surely some of them would have hitched flatbed trailers to their vehicles for the trip to Washington and gladly brought mowers along with them.
This was the revolt of the bourgeois, of the responsible, of the orderly, of people profoundly at peace with the traditional mores of American society. The spark that lit the tea-party movement was the rant by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who inveighed in early 2009 against an Obama-administration program to subsidize “the losers’ mortgages.” He was speaking for people who hadn’t borrowed beyond their means or tried to get rich quick by flipping houses, for the people who, in their thrift and enterprise, “carry the water instead of drink the water.”
The tea party’s detractors want to paint it as radical, when at bottom it represents the self-reliant, industrious heart of American life.
Sometimes you read an article that finally gets to the truth after repeated attempts by others have left you doubting their sanity. This is such an article. By the second paragraph I was smiling. This is a real description of who comes to the Tea Party events. This is what I saw last year at the Edenton Tea Party. A crowd of polite, hard working, family oriented and concerned citizens who are angry because they see a bunch of radical neo-communists trying to fundamentally reform their nation into something that they neither agree with or will tolerate. The only thing I saw wrong with the article is the crowd estimate. It was twice the size Lowry was willing to claim.
That error aside, the Tea Party movement is angry as Lowry noted. However not in the "lets tear down the fences and storm the centers of government as a mob mode" of the left wing radicals in the 60s. Not yet anyway. Instead they are politely organizing to follow the rules of our society and vote out the people with whom they are displeased. The biggest concern they have is that the people who currently control government are breaking all the rules. They do not trust that their efforts are going to carry the day even if they are in the majority. We have actually reached a point where the hardest working members of society do not trust their own government. Yet they are ready to follow the rules until it is clear that the other side is cheating. At that point the rage will go up to another level and this nation will find out just how determined they are.
Even if it reaches that point, I think that you will find one thing to be true. They will still pick up their own trash. The Tea Party movement is composed of the responsible citizens that have always made this nation great. This is the most civilized mob that has ever raged against its government. Maybe bourgeois is the right term for them, as Lowry argues. I would think that patriots would be more appropriate if not more accurate.
by Robert Costa - September 2nd, 2010 - National Review
The polling figures paint an astounding picture -- and not just for Democrats, but for the political class as a whole.
In 1979, as Carter’s poll numbers slid south amidst a sagging economy, [Pat] Caddell drafted a memo to the president urging him to recognize that the nation was “deep in crisis.” Gazing upon today’s electoral landscape, Caddell paints an even bleaker picture. “We may be at a pre-revolutionary moment,” he says, unsmiling. “Everything is in motion.”
“Democrats used to be the voice of the common man in America, not his dictator,” Caddell laments. “Now, with Wall Street, [the Democrat's] mantra is, ‘We’ll take your money, but we won’t kiss.’ The people who own the party — George Soros, the Center for American Progress, the public-employee union bosses, rich folks flying private jets to ‘ideas festivals’ in Aspen — they’re Obama’s base.”
“With Carter, I would argue that his failures were not of the heart or of intent, but, perhaps, of execution,” Caddell says. “He was never inconsistent with what he originally envisioned. I can’t say the same for Obama.” Successful presidents, Caddell argues, “realize that it is not about them — that the country is bigger than their presidency. With Obama, it is always about him. It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but I think that it has become obvious.”
Pat Caddell refers to the 'political class'. I prefer to call them the 'ruling class'. In either case, these are new terms that recognize there are a number of people in Washington who are out of touch with the voters, even in their own party. They see their role in government as doing what they think should be done and to hell with the American people. They hold our nation and its voters in contempt.
Barack Hussein Obama is one of these. Sure he has company - both inside his party and in the Republican Party as well. Lindsey Graham comes to mind. Some others have recently been defeated in Republican primaries, truly angering a number of now retired, and some not yet retired, Republican members of the 'ruling class'.
Pat Caddell's views on the coming election concern me because he is one of the people in the Democrat Party who still clearly loves America for what it was and not for some idealistic dream of a neo-communist utopia that can be created here. I respect him. Yet as noted in this article, he is concerned that the controversies in the coming elections can get out of control and lead to revolution. I don't think his comments are hyperbole. I have the same concern. Glen Beck, during many of his recent shows, has been expressing the same fear.
Trying to get angry people to reject bloodshed and work together with their enemies to build a united country has always been one of the greatest challenges to governance. Without George Washington I believe it would have been beyond our own founding fathers. Some simply have to get their way or they will not go along. Obama strikes me as that kind of extremist. However I am not deluded to think we do not have them on the right as well. So far, as proved by the Restoring Honor Rally, the Tea Party Movement is following the course of working within the representative Republic rules.
I don't see the same kind of responsible leadership on the other side. Obama and his people have not convinced me of their good intentions. They have committed themselves to the Marxist belief, "one man, one vote, one time." Obama's "I won" gloat sounds horribly like the idea that no other votes will ever matter to him. It is the source of the fear on the right that the elections in November may not happen.
This fear has existed since before the 2008 elections, as noted in a comprehensive article on the Red State blog that can be found here. Progressives can call it paranoia all they want, but the article delineates example after example of actions and statements that fed the fear, and still exist. One of the thoughts I have often had in the last two years is that Obama might well have been better positioned if he had followed the strategy to control future elections that the labor unions were urging. The Red State article describes this strategy. I hope it is now too late.
Yet that really comes down to the question, how willing is Obama to make an all or nothing attempt to stop his losses through aborting the elections? An egomaniac like Obama, who even Democrats like Caddell admits sees everything through the filter of his own desires, may be willing to take the risk of a Constitutional crisis to maintain power.
by Carol Taber - September 1st, 2010 - The American Thinker
Other presidents have been wrong. Other presidents have been misguided. Other presidents have been weak and pusillanimous and pathetic.
Only one truly disdains America. His name is Barack Obama.
How else to explain his latest outrage against the country that elevated him to the ranks of world leadership? Last week, the Obama State Department submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the supposed human rights violations taking place in the United States... for many citizens, this report is a rank anti-American manifesto and the last straw. Many believe it to be outright evil, that there is no other word to encompass Obama's disgraceful and indefensible decision.
Barack Obama is repeatedly proving that he despises the country that has made him its leader. The neo-communist press has successfully misdirected those who picked up on the early signs he was not proud of our nation, such as his wife's statement that America is a "downright mean" country.
Obama is oblivious to the fact that the poor in America are better off than any other country on earth, and better off than the middle class in most countries. That is not good enough for Barack Obama. He demands that our rich be made poor, our patriots be disarmed and our minorities be given government privilege to take what they want. He rejects the possibility that anyone who cannot succeed in the richest and greatest country on earth may have any personal responsibility for that situation. Every victim must be given a scapegoat for their failures in life.
And Barack Obama will determine who that scapegoat is.