September 25th, 2009 7:45 am
September 21st, 2009 8:25 pm
What a week for the Community Organizer in Chief. First, the corrupt organization for whom he worked and legally represented gets exposed for the criminal organization it is…
…and now this:
U.S. charges Obama fund-raiser in $290 million fraud
Hassan Nemazee, a fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, has been indicted for defrauding Bank of America, HSBC and Citigroup Inc out of more than $290 million in loan proceeds, U.S. prosecutors said on Monday.
What’s that about judging men by the company they keep?
September 17th, 2009 7:11 pm
Nothing like manufactured tears to liven up a press conference.
“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”
Which kind of rhetoric, Nancy?
Like members of Congress comparing private citizens to nazis?
Or the rhetoric of the Speaker of the House publicly accusing the CIA of lying to Congress?
I would ask how she actually says this crap with a straight face… but I guess that’s an advantage of the botox.
September 15th, 2009 7:22 pm
Bitterly divided along party lines, the House formally rebuked Republican Rep. Joe Wilson Tuesday for shouting “You lie” at President Barack Obama during last week’s nationally televised speech to Congress.
The rare resolution of disapproval was pushed through by Democrats insisting that Wilson, a South Carolina lawmaker, had violated basic rules of decorum and civility in his outburst. Republicans dismissed the vote as a political “witch hunt” and a waste of precious time and taxpayers’ money.
Really? Breach of decorum? Rules of civility?
Let’s review a few moments in Democrat decorum and civility shall we…
Democrats, en masse, booed Bush during his State of the Union:
Democrat Representative Pete Stark, on the House floor, accused the sitting President of being amused by kids getting their heads blown off.
First of all, I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out– the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional ten million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you gonna get that money? You gonna tell us lies, like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have the money to fund the war or children, but you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.
Democrats can take their definition of decorum and civility…
…and shove it straight up their asses.
September 11th, 2009 11:49 am
…and they don’t like it very much. Good.
Background from the folks behind the videotaping:
The scenario we posed the ACORN Housing employees in Baltimore is due to the application of similar power tactics. We gave ACORN a taste of its own medicine. ACORN was alleged to be thug-like, criminal, and nefarious. This criminal behavior was evidenced by a video of Baltimore ACORN community organizers breaking the locks on foreclosed homes. Instead of railing against their radicalism, it is best to bring out this type of radicalism. Hannah Giles and I took advantage of ACORN’s regard for thug criminality by posing the most ridiculous criminal scenario we could think of and seeing if they would comply–which they did without hesitation.
Additionally, instead of focusing on foreclosure itself, which has become seemingly as politicized as abortion, we focused on crimes more difficult for the left to defend: trafficking of young helpless girls and tax evasion. The first group represents the severely disadvantaged, the second a threat to the distribution of wealth.
While manipulation or entrapment occurs when people are encouraged to do things they otherwise wouldn’t, the pre-set trap is their own. These tactics allow the viewer to see ACORN’s soul; their playing field and their morality, out in the open. Their system is based on conflict and change for its own sake. This system is based on totalitarian principles and class war techniques. These people understand pressure, power and self-interest. When the Baltimore employees saw we were shady dealers, their instincts clicked in, as we were prime recruits.
ACORN has ascended. They elect our politicians and receive billions in tax money. Their world is a revolutionary, socialistic, atheistic world, where all means are justifiable. And they create chaos, again, for it’s own sake. It is time for us to be studying and applying their tactics, many of which are ideologically neutral. It is time, as Hannah said as we walked out of the ACORN facility, for conservative activists to “create chaos for glory.”
So why is this story important? Aside from the obvious illegalities being advocated and advised upon in these videos, remember this is the same group that stormed conferences and government offices back in 1995 to intimidate legislators who were trying to investigate and reform the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that allows groups like ACORN to force banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers.
That March, House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to address a meeting of county commissioners at the Washington Hilton. But, first, some 500 protesters from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) poured into the ballroom from both the kitchen and the main entrance.
Hotel staffers who tried to block them were quickly overwhelmed by demonstrators chanting, “Nuke Newt!” and “We want Newt!” Jamming the aisles, carrying bullhorns and taunting the assembled county commissioners, demonstrators swiftly took over the head table and commandeered the microphone, sending two members of Congress scurrying.
The demonstrators’ target, Gingrich, hadn’t yet arrived - and his speech was cancelled. When the cancellation was announced, ACORN’s foot soldiers cheered.
Yet ACORN had only just begun. Two days later, 50 to 100 of the same protesters hit their main target - a House Banking subcommittee considering changes to the Community Reinvestment Act…
And this is the same group that Barack Obama held a role of “leadership trainer” as well as represented as legal counsel…
And to bring the above undercover video scandal, the thuggery to prevent change in the CRA that could’ve mitigated the financial collapse and all the voter registration fraud and intimidation tactics full circle… remember that this is the same group that Barack Obama promised would “help shape his administration“…
How’s that hope and change feel now?
As expected, I have the usual emails flooding in from leftwing crybabies defending ACORN and saying this is an isolated event. And, as expected, they’re wrong as usual. Here’s undercover video of similar “advice” being given in ACORN’s Washington, DC office:
…and more in New York:
The response from these idiots is hilarious.
The ACORN workers in question have denied the conversations took place, and ACORN’s attorneys subsequently sent letters to Roger Ailes, President of Fox News, on September 10th and September 11th. You can read both letters here.
In the September 10th letter, the attorneys stated in no uncertain terms that the videotape had been doctored, and demanded that Fox “cease publication of these tapes unless it can produce proof that the conversations actually took place.”
Only liberals could stare at “proof that the conversations actually took place” and deny the “conversations actually took place”. Perhaps it depends on the definition of “is”.
The letter also asks Fox to “take your responsibility as a news gathering organization seriously.” I have seen no evidence that Fox has honored either of these requests.
The irony of the century. Someone finally does the job the MSM should be doing and suddenly the Left doesn’t like it. I guess “serious news gathering” just deals with the First Lady’s arms and the President’s basketball picks.
But even better is that despite denying that the “conversation actually took place”, ACORN is threatening to sue the makers of the video as well as FoxNews.
In the letter sent to Ailes on September 11th, ACORN’s attorneys notified Fox of their conclusion that the “filming and broadcast of the conversations at the Baltimore ACORN offices violates §10-402 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code, which makes it unlawful to wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept any oral conversation unless all parties to the communication consent.”
So to sum up ACORN’s defense… it was illegal for the film makers to records the conversations that never took place.
The Senate dealt a blow to ACORN Monday evening, voting to deny the Department of Housing and Urban Development from granting funds to the community organization.
Sen. Mike Johanns’s (R-Neb.) amendment to the appropriations bill providing funding to the department passed in a bipartisan, 83-7 vote.
Thank you, Senator Johanns!
Be sure to contact the HUD Inspector General and request an investigation into how this criminal organization was misusing your tax dollars.
You can call us toll-free at - 1-800-347-3735
You can fax us at - (202) 708-4829
You can e-mail us at - firstname.lastname@example.org
You can write us at -
HUD OIG Hotline (GFI)
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
The OIG is tasked with independently investigating claims of fraud, waste, abuse, and serious mismanagement in HUD-funded programs.
Another “isolated event”… this time at ACORN offices in California. Adding to the basic prostitution, fraud and child abuse advice, this ACORN worker proudly brags about murdering her own husband and threatening the lives of neighbors. Hope and change, baby, hope and change.
And yet one more… from San Diego. This time the ACORN worker is offering much needed advice on the best border location across which to smuggle underage sex slaves. Your tax dollars at work.
September 10th, 2009 8:43 am
CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan
Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama’s health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama’s address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.
At this point, most people stop reading and move on to the next article. But for those who stick around to see the details behind the claim see this:
The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican.
A 27-point gap between party affiliations and only a 14-point gain. Seems like a potentially different claim than “double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan”.
In fact, CNN even admits, although buried in the last line of the article, that they oversampled Democrats by a double-digit margin:
Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.
UPDATE: Upon further evaluation, the details of the recent poll show an even worse trend for Obama.
Question 1. What was your overall reaction to President Obama’s speech tonight – very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative?
Somewhat or very positive: 77%
Somewhat or very negative: 21%
But…. they offer a comparison of the results from Obama’s State of the Union in February.
Somewhat or very positive: 92%
Somewhat or very negative: 8%
The takeaway from this comparison is that despite oversampling Democrats by a double-digit margin in last night’s poll, there was a 15% decline in those who reacted positively and a 13% increase in those who reacted negatively to Obama’s speech.
Question 2. Do you think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Right Direction: 60%
Wrong Direction: 35%
Right Direction: 70%
Wrong Direction: 27%
A 10% increase in “right direction” responses in a pool that CNN admits is “is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole” isn’t all that stellar. But look what story emerges when comparing these results with those of his prior address to Congress…
Right Direction: 71%
Wrong Direction: 26%
Right Direction: 88%
Wrong Direction: 11%
After his State of the Union, the 88% of respondents thought Obama’s policies will move the country in the right direction, but that support had dropped 28% to 60% just before last night’s speech… and only bounced back to 70% afterward… even when CNN oversampled Democrats by 27 points. A little different story than what CNN touts in the headlines and lede paragraph.
To add another dimension to Obama’s dismal performance, compare his numbers (even with the flawed sampling) with those of Bill Clinton’s in 1993 just before HillaryCare laid the foundation for the Republican Revolution:
Obama’s Healthcare Reform Plan (2009):
Support - 67%
Oppose - 29%
Clinton’s Healthcare Reform Plan (1993):
Support - 67%
Oppose - 17%
The support appears to remain stagnant (though the numbers are still questionable in light of other polling on the subject)… but the opposition is almost 60% higher this time around.
There’s your story, CNN. I dare you to report the facts.
September 9th, 2009 9:04 am
They asked for a debate, they got one.
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.
Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.
Democrats aren’t serious about actually improving the healthcare system… they want to create yet another bureaucratic dependency upon which they can manipulate and base future campaign promises and games to keep a captive voting block.
September 8th, 2009 4:18 pm
Not only are Democrats trying to introduce a government-takeover of the health industry, but now they’re proposing penalties for those who exercise their choice not to purchase health insurance.
A top senator is calling for fines of up to $3,800 on families who fail to get medical insurance after a health care overhaul goes into effect.
The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage.
Auto insurance is not mandatory, per se. Unless you operate a motor vehicle, you do not have to purchase auto insurance. You can choose not to carry automobile insurance by simply choosing not to operate a motor vehicle. The problem with comparing it to health insurance, is that there is no way to opt out of the “mandatory” health insurance option. There are plenty of people who can afford health insurance, but opt out of purchasing it, for a variety of reasons. Insurance is a legal agreement between two parties whereby one party agrees to pay premiums in exchange for a promise from the other party to cover future potential obligations. The government should never get into the business of forcing citizens into contracts.
September 5th, 2009 10:12 am
Apparently seeing that his message is not resonating with educated Americans who possess common sense, the Community Organizer in Chief sees an avenue to campaign to a captive and impressionable audience. Here’s the response from the President of our local school board.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I understand that your office sent a request to all of the school districts across the country, which was addressed to our principals that our students tune into an internet broadcast by President Obama next week. As the request was sent directly to our principals and not through the proper protocol of our administrators, you have created a state of confusion. You of all people should know you cannot allow that type of request to be distributed to our staff, without going through the proper channels.
As a former Superintendent, I am sure you realize that our curriculum is very stringent and deliberate. In addition, as a former superintendent, I am sure you realize that your request will only disrupt the lesson plans that have already been developed for that day. Finally, as a former superintendent, you must realize that your request appears to have some political ramifications.
You as a former superintendent dealt with mandates, forced laws, and intrusions into your schools. I understand you have a long record of standing up against those types of issues. I also know that you understand that the President has placed school board members, such as myself, in a no win situation based on the way you handled this matter. As a result, I am formally requesting that you do not go forward with this planned broadcast. Instead, if you want to share this message, and it has a basis related to our curriculum, please send to us for review in advance. We will then have the opportunity to share with the parents and guardians of our students, and they can decide if their children will review.
Our district is not going to formally participate in this event. However, many students may be held out from school for political reasons, and as such, this will only hurt our school district even more. You are creating a wedge in our society that cannot be overcome overnight by allowing this to happen. I respect your office and the office of the President of the United States. However, if I put my parent hat on for a second, I cannot stand by and let what is being described as an innocent broadcast (if you say so, let us see it in advance) take place without knowing for sure what the message will be to my three children.
Please do not think for a second that I am being unrealistic, quite the contrary. I am tired of government entities putting local school boards in a position to be the bad guy. Please stop, think about what message you are trying to deliver, and handle this correctly.
I urge you to not broadcast this message next week, it has been a complete distraction already this week, and it will only get worse. My constituents are split on this issue, and by bifurcating the parents of our District, this is creating a truly partisan political disagreement. This as you are well aware as a former superintendent, has no place in our schools. Mr. Secretary, you must not allow this to happen.
Feel free to call me at your convenience, if you care to discuss.
Daniel G. Huberty
Barry, you should just go ahead and deliver your campaign material to your own party faithful, instead… given that it was developed for young schoolchildren, it shouldn’t go too far over their heads.