Friday, November 20, 2009

QUIZ: WHO SAID IT, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OR THE COMMUNIST PARTY?


Below are direct quotes from either from the Democrat Party or from the Communist Party USA. The challenge is to read each comment, categorized by topic, then decide if the quote came from the Democrats or the Communists. This should be easy as there are significant differences between the two parties. Be sure to share this quiz with your Democrat friends, who should have no problem acing it. To improve readability, I've highlighted key words and phrases.
To improve your chances, please read the quotes completely and carefully. To calculate your results, please write your answer to the right of each quote. Write:
"D" for Democrat Party, and "C" for Communist Party:
ON OUR ECONOMIC CRISIS:

Our country is facing its greatest crisis since the 1930s. At the same time, the moment is filled with great hope and possibility. The crisis was caused by capitalism and Wall Street greed. The solution to it is being born in today's unprecedented mass movement for change.

ON 'GOING GREEN,' GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT:

An economy powered by two toxic pollutants: oil and corporate greed. Misplaced priorities that send more than half of our tax dollars to military spending that kills people, ruins lives, pollutes the planet and wrecks our economy. Damaging foreign policy driven by a quest to secure oil. Workers’ lives lost and health destroyed because of corporate greed. A system that puts profit before people and ravages the earth along the way. And the need for workers and people of the world to unite, to love and preserve our planet and to build a better world.

Isn’t it possible in the Obama era to create millions of green jobs in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy in tandem with an attack on global warming?

Turning this around means getting our economic system in sync with Mother Nature — greening our economy. It means a massive national undertaking to invest in sustainable, non-polluting energy, industry and transportation systems; in well-planned, vibrant and sustainable “green” cities, towns and rural communities; in education, health care and culture to produce an informed and involved citizenry. Of course, that means putting people, and nature, before profits. This won’t happen without a fight.
Climate change is not the only threatening environmental problem: others include the collapse of important fisheries due to over-harvesting, degradation of the soil, increased water stresses, depletion of non-renewable resources, extinction threats to many species, worldwide spread of persistent organic pollutants which harm the human reproductive and immune systems, rapidly accelerating desertification, increasing air and water pollution.
ON THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF BARACK OBAMA:
The election of Barack Obama was indeed historic. While many of the pundits and other candidates rejected the idea, it was clear that the majority of voters were ready to elect our nation’s first African American President. The over 66 million votes cast for Obama represent a major blow against racism.
We hail the tens of millions who came to the polls and registered an historic defeat of the ultra right. These voters saw through the direct and indirect appeals to racism and voted for Obama. Their votes represent the highest expression of patriotism.
Throughout the campaign at his record-breaking rallies, Sen. Obama constantly emphasized that his all-people’s movement was built from the bottom up. We are very mindful of what the President-elect said in his acceptance speech, “This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change.”
As one union supporter said just days after the election, “Now is the time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. There is legislation to be drafted, there is organizing to be done. Obama can’t do it by himself.”
If you’re outraged by the direction the right-wing corporate Bush administration is taking the country, there is something you can do!
In 2008 the elections for President and Congress could change the political map in our country. Shatter right-wing Republican political control of the South, end right-wing political dominance of rural America, create big new possibilities for workers to join and organize unions and give new voice to the disenfranchised. The 2008 elections could usher in a new grass roots people’s politics in our nation.
For nearly three decades, since Ronald Reagan was president, the ultra-right has dominated the political scene. They enabled a rampage by big business and transnationals to destroy unions and dismantle public services.
Unionized industrial jobs left. Profits soared. Wealth has consolidated in a few hands creating poverty and insecurity for the rest of us. African American and Latino workers have been hardest hit by loss of good union jobs.
The agenda under Clinton was dictated by compromise with the right-wing Republican controlled Congress. Working people were hit with job loss under NAFTA and loss of safety net protection under welfare reform.
But even this was not enough for the ultra-right. George Bush was installed as President in 2000 to accelerate the corporate imperial agenda and consolidate its power.
The “American Dream” has turned into a nightmare for millions of families. Economic security, healthcare, affordable housing and higher education seem a thing of the past. More African American men are in prison than in college, reflecting the growth of structural racism. The pursuit of profits has resulted in a lack of action to address global warming.
ON THE GREAT DEPRESSION:
Our parents and grandparents were such bottom-up change agents in the Depression years. Unhappy with the pace and substance of change, they sat down in plants and in the fields, marched for veteran benefits, petitioned local relief agencies, lobbied for a social safety net, established unemployed groups, organized industrial workers into the CIO, opposed discrimination and racism, turned multi-racial unity into an organizing principle, and, we should note, re-elected Roosevelt and a New Deal Congress in a landslide in the 1936 elections.
ON HEALTH CARE REFORM:
As the historic fight for health care reform passes to the Senate next week, and then to conference committee before final vote, a continued and expanded push is needed to prevent blockage of this key legislation, to insure a strong public option with no taxation of health benefits, inclusion of immigrants, and to eliminate measures that restrict coverage for women's reproductive rights. Messages to the Senate are needed in favor of health care reform that is affordable, accessible, portable and universal.
President Obama’s speech to Congress last night reset the debate and struggle for real health care reform. No one thought that the reform of our nation’s health care system would be easy to begin with, but what transpired recently – the fierce counter attack by the right-wing extremists, the letting loose of the demagogues of hatred, fear, racism, and division, and the digging in of private insurance companies and other sections of corporate America – proved to be a sobering reminder that the political terrain and initiative can shift in the direction of one’s foes, as it did this summer.
As for the supporters of health care reform, we have to be every bit as tenacious as right-wing reaction. Justice, morality, and truth are on our side, but they are not enough. Only when combined with persistence, united action, and struggle over the bill’s content, including a public option, will real health care reform see the light of day.
ON A SECOND "STIMULUS" BILL:
Much the same can be said about winning a second stimulus bill, and we sure need one, given the still-rising rate, and likely long term persistence, of unemployment.
ON EQUALITY:
Can’t we envision taking new strides in the long journey for racial and gender equality in this new era, marked at its beginning by the election of the first African American to the presidency?
And isn’t the overhaul of the criminal justice and prison system – a system steeped in racism – no longer pie-in-the sky, but something that can be done in the foreseeable future?
We can help re-bend the arc of history in the direction of justice, equality, and peace. But only if we, and millions like us, pursue a sound strategy that unifies broad sections of the American people and looks for alliances no matter how temporary and conditional. Majorities make history, not militant minorities.
ON LABOR UNIONS:
Talk about a sea change. A President-Elect who actually walks on picketlines rather than busts unions. Unprecedented independent labor political action that arguably made the difference in changing the direction of our country. Stunning victories at Smithfield Foods in Tar Heel, North Carolina, at Republic Windows in Chicago, and Boeing in Seattle. New higher levels of labor unity - its been a long time since the whole labor movement has been so united on a presidential candidate. The most unifying and far-reaching discussion in labor of racism as a central block to working class and trade union unity since the 1930's. And important new steps towards a truly international labor movement.
That we have spurned such an approach too is to our credit. (Read the outstanding speech of AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka to the national convention of CBTU, in which he speaks of labor’s positive view of the new administration and the new openings for class and democratic struggles that now exist.)
ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S AGENDA:
Millions of people have responded to the Obama campaign’s request for input on what the priorities of the new administration should be. Labor, the women’s movement, and other people’s organizations are already making proposals that include the following:
-- A stimulus package of a half trillion dollars or more, to create millions of jobs, including a public works program.
-- Emergency help for the jobless and the victims of the sub prime mortgage crisis.
-- Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, so more workers can have unions.
-- A concrete timetable for pulling out our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as rapidly as possible.
-- Step up the campaign for universal healthcare through such means as passing HR676; preserve and improve Medicare and Medicaid; extend children’s health care plans and unemployment compensation.
-- Emergency aid to cities and states.
In addition, there are calls to review and where necessary repeal Bush’s executive orders, as well as the Patriot Act. United action is called for, against California’s Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban), against racist violence and to end the ICE raids and deportations of immigrant workers, and for comprehensive, democratic immigration reform including a path towards citizenship.
For answers to the above quiz, please the graphic of President Obama located at the bottom of the right sidebar of the site.
For easy access to other recent articles, click here: "THE FREEDOM POST"

Share/Save/Bookmark

MORE HOT AIR FROM AL GORE: 'EARTH'S CORE IS SEVERAL MILLION DEGREES'

More hot air from gasbag Al Gore, the Global Warming, oops....I mean "Climate Change" (the label "Global Warming" doesn't exactly fit since global temperatures have been on the decline the past few years) pimp whose gullible, faith-based worshipers have coincidentally made him a millionaire, hundreds of times over.
Gore recently appeared with Conan O'Brien and made one of the more asinine statements that he's ever made, and for him, that's saying something:
CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy...
AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE (Hey, they gave it to Obama, didn't they): Yeah, yeah.

O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ...

GORE: Yeah.

O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...

Hey moron, the temperature of the core of the earth is estimated to be only around 6,000 degrees Celsius. Perhaps you should fact check your stats before you go blowing your own personal hot air. (But wait, the actual stats would be an "inconvenient truth" for you and tear down your flawed argument.) And he wrote a book on this stuff? You would have to journey to the center of the sun to reach the several million degrees mark. And notice how O'Brien, who I assume has to be smarter than Gore, doesn't call him on it!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that Al Gore isn't one. As reported in the Washington Post about Gore's lousy college grades:
For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.
There is a reason why Al Gore flies around the world blowing the so-called "pollutant" he proposes to eliminate, saying "The Debate is Over." It's because the climate change coward is constantly invited to debate the facts, but he refuses to.
For easy access to the ten most recent articles, click here: "THE FREEDOM POST" then page down.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Thursday, November 19, 2009

LINDSEY GRAHAM TORTURES ERIC HOLDER (VIDEO)





Ever seen an Attorney General squirm before? Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder on Holder's idiotic decision to give the 9/11 master-mind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, constitutional rights. Graham slices and dices Holder into tiny little pieces by hammering home the point that once you give constitutional rights to terrorists, they must be given Miranda rights, be given an attorney, and be told that they have the right to remain silent, etc.

Graham gives Holder plenty of opportunity to explain himself, but he beats around the bush, bumbling and mumbling none answers. Holder can't even say how Osama bin Laden would be treated if captured, after Graham asks him if bin Laden should be read his rights if captured. Holder even discloses that they have read Miranda rights to terrorists captured in the battle field of the now banned term, "War on Terror."

This isn't the only incidence in which Eric Holder was soft on terrorism. As the Deputy Attorney General for former President Bill Clinton, he orchestrated the pardon of the F.A.L.N. terrorists. Holder also let loose on-the-run fugitive financier and Clinton contributor, Marc Rich, who was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis.

Eric Holder is a criminal for giving terrorists, enemies of war, constitutional rights and should be tried for treason.

Below is the video of the exchange that took place on Wednesday, November 18, 2009, followed by partial written text:

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

HOLDER: Well, I think --

GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]

GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --

GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.


For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the very top of the site, then page down.
Share/Save/Bookmark

WHY OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (DUH) AND DOES IT MATTER?

ObamaCare is so clearly unconstitutional that it's embarrassing, disgusting, shameful, and dangerous that 215 Congressmen would even consider proposing it. It's almost even more atrocious that the American people can so nonchalantly allow their Constitutional rights to be stolen from them.

You don't have to be a constitutional scholar, an attorney (thank God), or a politician to know that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Even without reading or knowing the Constitution, most of us intuitively know that it doesn't seem acceptable for the government to force you buy (also known as an "individual mandate") a certain "acceptable" product (health care insurance in this case, but believe me that if this is passed, a whole new can of worms will follow), with the penalties for noncompliance being jail time and onerous financial penalties. Something about that doesn't sit right with most people even if they've never cracked the cover of the Constitution. So without getting technical, most should know they're getting screwed by the government.

Never before in the nation's history has the government forced individual citizens to purchase a product, any product or service, ever. Never before has the government been given the power to say, "Buy this, and, if you don't you go to jail." Why haven't they? Because they can't (at least not legally), but we've never had simultaneously a radical Marxist in the White House, an extreme far-left House and Senate, and a prostrate media. If that triumvirate, along with an uninformed, apathetic, gullible public, ignores the Constitution, then in essence there are no limitations to what the government can do to us.

The Constitution was instituted primarily with one major goal: TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, to limit its power, its control, its authority, its activities, and its size. It is not, as the Left loves to say, "A living and breathing document," which means they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean, changing it to meet whatever ridiculous idea, invented right, or new unauthorized Utopian government program that they happen to have the votes for. The Founders specifically laid out the steps to amend the Constitution, but the Left sees this as too time consuming and inconvenient.

The specific, allowed functions and powers of the federal government are laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
  • The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (now spelled: "defense") and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  • To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
  • To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  • To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  • To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  • To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  • To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  • To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  • To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  • To provide and maintain a Navy;
  • To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  • To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  • To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
  • To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This part of the Constitution doesn't list what the government can't do to us. Obviously that would be too long of a list and perhaps the Founders couldn't imagine every item that future government leaders could create. Therefore, they gave a comprehensive list of what is allowed by the government, a rather short list, to limit what they could do to us. Remember, the Founding Fathers were fleeing from an overreaching and oppressive "Big Government," which is why they were so adamant is limiting the role of government.

President Obama, on the other hand, views the Constitution as a fundamentally flawed document that is constraining. In a 2001 interview, Obama said:

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

Sleazy, power-hungry politicians, in their goal of buying votes, in essence bribing us with our own money, distort the original meaning and intention of the "General Welfare" and "Commerce" clauses as meaning the government has the authority to do anything! James Madison, who is considered the main author of the Constitution, should know what the words meant. He defined the "General Welfare" as:
With respect to the words, “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution…[that] was not contemplated by the creators.”
If that's not clear enough, to anybody but a politician, Thomas Jefferson succinctly and directly said:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
Some even stretch it further, making the case that it's impossible to reach life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without a government provided health insurance policy (writing it is even more absurd than saying it). However, Benjamin Franklin wisely wrote:
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
The commerce clause was written specifically to tear down trade barriers amongst the states, and not as a tool to increase government's power over our lives. It wasn't meant to authorize vague and additional powers not specifically enumerated.

The abuses of these clauses by unethical politicians is not a recent transgression. However, the degree to which they're being abused is at an all-time high. They conveniently forget, or worse ignore, the government limiting ninth and tenth amendments.

The Ninth Amendment states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution stipulates that the States and the people retain all powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government.

It's obvious that the Democrat Party's view of the Constitution is that of it being non-existent, unless they need to pull out the First Amendment (free speech) to justify their periodic desire to put a crucifix in a jar of urine.

The bottom line in plain English is this: It is not the job of defenders of the Constitution to prove that ObamaCare is unconstitutional (although I've clearly accomplished that). The ONLY powers of the federal government are enumerated (named). It is the duty of those proposing ObamaCare, or any other law, to prove it's constitutionality by showing where in the document that power is authorized.

No one has been able to do it. They can't. (In fact, when Nancy Pelosi was asked directly about the constitutionality of forcing American citizens to buy health care and putting them in jail for non-compliance, her response was "Are you serious?") But, it doesn't matter if the president, the Congress, the media, and the citizens choose to ignore the law of the land.

For easy access to other recent articles, click on "THE FREEDOM POST" at the top of the site, then page down.
Share/Save/Bookmark

HARRY REID'S GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH PLAN REQUIRES MONTHLY ABORTION FEE

Posted by GOP Leader (John Boehner) Press Office on November 19th, 2009

Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan. It’s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 1303(a)(2)(C) describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.

Leader Reid’s 2,074-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The National Right to Life Committee has called the Reid abortion language “completely unacceptable.” The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion. The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats. The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange. The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree. House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.


Share/Save/Bookmark

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

VIDEO OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S INTERVIEW ON FOX NEWS, NOV. 18, 2009

Below are the videos from President Barack Obama's interview on FOX News with FOX's Major Garrett, on November 18, 2009.

The interview comes on the heels of the Obama administration's dumb war with FOX News, led by the Mao admiring Communications Director, Anita Dunn (who recently resigned.). Without being able to show evidence of specific inaccuracies by FOX, several Obama administration representatives have attempted to demonize FOX news as not being a "real news organization".

Fox's ratings have soared, from already high levels, since Obama's declaration of war against them. The war heated up in September when the president made appearances on five Sunday talk shows, but snubbed FOX. The administration even attempted to exclude FOX from the press pool, a strategy that strongly backfired when members of competing media threatened to not participate in a press conference with the "pay czar" if the White House indeed did not allow Major Garrett, the Senior White House Correspondent for Fox News, to interview him. Being presented with the threat, the Obama administration quickly caved and allowed FOX to participate.

Below are the videos of two-part interview. If you wish to read the full text, please click here.






Share/Save/Bookmark

"PROFIT": THE NEW DIRTY WORD

Profit” and the “profit motive” have successfully been reclassified by the American political Left as a dirty word.

The word "profit" was formerly a measure of success, achievement, hard work, and efficiency. It stood for accomplishment and reward for prudent risk-taking. Now, there is the insinuation that somehow certain profits, usually determined by a politician, and often the mainstream media, are unnecessary, illegitimate, unearned, and evil.

At a time when oil prices had temporarily spiked, last year’s easy target was “Big Oil":

“ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up those profits easily.” -- (Presidential Candidate) Barack Obama

“The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits.” -- (Presidential Candidate) Hillary Clinton

Let me repeat: "They are not going to give up those profits easily," and "I want to take those profits."

Questions:

  • In America, if your neighbor earns more money than you do, are you able to take it from them because you feel they make "too much"? Wouldn't this be considered theft?
  • Same scenario as above, except your motives are "pure". Suppose you promise to give the money to another neighbor you define as needing it more than the neighbor you stole it from (after taking your cut like the government does). Does that make it anymore legal? Try explaining that to the cops!
  • Who earned these profits? Who do they belong to? Who took the risk in order to reap the rewards (profits)? Who worked for them?
  • Who produced the product (oil, drugs, health insurance, etc.) that the public voluntarily purchases because it benefits them?

Hint: It's not the government. Only "Big Government," at the ultimate point of a gun, can take money, property, and/or "profits" from someone else and call it moral and legal. Anyone who talked about taking money that wasn't theirs would be considered as planning a crime.

Last year’s target was “Big Oil,” this year it’s the full-scale assault on the private health care industry profits. What is the evil profit margin of the greedy health insurance industry? A paltry 2%, barely over break even.

"The outright greed of the health care industry in the United States generates huge corporate profits on the one hand, and at the same time increasingly excludes access to quality health care for millions of working families across the nation."
-- Communist Party USA

That's right, the Communists! Not the president, not the Democrat Party, although it could have easily come from them, word-for-word.

ExxonMobil’s “obscene” net profit margin is a rather mediocre 9%, ranking them #185 out of Standard & Poor’s 500 companies. Microsoft’s is nearly triple, at 25%, yet nobody complains about "Big Tech". Their profits seem to be safe from confiscation since the government isn’t currently focusing on taking over the software industry.

It's convenient for the government to demonize the word, "profit", since they don't have to produce profit in order to stay in business. They have the unique ability to produce a near perfect track record of failed, bankrupt, or insolvent institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak, Social Security...I could continue, just insert your favorite government bureaucracy. The government can always depend on a coercive bailout from taxpayers.

The notion that the government can arbitrarily decide “how much is too much” is an obliteration of individual freedom. Business earnings are the property of the owners, i.e. people, the individuals, who made the investment and took the risk.

Protecting citizens’ rights, not championing the violation of them, is one of the core reasons that the government exists. Forcefully seizing profits earned by one individual, or group of individuals, for the distribution to another, with the intention of securing their vote, is the ultimate of greed and deceit. It commits precisely the same kind of injustice and tyranny our Founding Fathers rebelled against two centuries ago.

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.” -- James Madison


Share/Save/Bookmark

WASHINGTON STATE STIMULUS: $1.5 MILLION PER "JOB"

Top Congressional DistrictsJobsAmount
4th congressional district1,487.1$2,282,725,268
Above is courtesy of government stimulus website Recovery.gov
More stimulus stupidity from our wizards at the Obama administration. This stuff would be laughable if it weren't true. According to the government's $84 million website, Recovery.gov, IF you can believe their numbers, the federal government gave just under $2.3 billion (Reminder: This is with borrowed money that the government doesn't have) to the 4th congressional district in Washington state that supposedly created 1,487.10 jobs. I can't help but wonder what a .10 job looks like, but I'm sure the government does.
That works out to over $1,500,000 per job! Based upon their track record of fraudulent reporting, it's probably worse than that.
And who is going to pay these people? The government? Nope, they have no money. It's us, the taxpayers who will ultimately be on the hook for this suicidal financial trainwreck.
To view an interactive map of stimulus reporting fraud, see: An Interactive Map of Obama's Stimulus Job Claims

Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

SARAH PALIN'S INTERVIEW WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH


RUSH: We are going to open this hour with a rare personal interview, a rare guest. It doesn't happen much on this program, but we are happy to have with us former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whose book, Going Rogue, hits the shelves today and it's already headed for I think a record in sales. Governor Palin, thanks for making time. It's great to talk to you again. We spoke last Thursday in an interview for the Limbaugh Letter, but it's great to have you here on the radio.

GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you so much, and dittos from an Alaskan.

RUSH: Where are you, by the way? Where are we speaking to you from?

GOV. PALIN: In a hotel room in New York City. I'm going to do a couple of interviews after that and then head to Grand Rapids for the kickoff of the book tour.

RUSH: This is going to be exciting. Are you looking forward to that?
GOV. PALIN: I am so looking forward to this. I cannot wait to meet some of these good Americans all across this country. It's going to be a blast.
RUSH: They can't wait to meet you, judging by the reception you got during the campaign. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Governor Palin, when we spoke last Thursday I spoke to her a lot about the things in her book regarding the campaign. That stuff you'll read in the Limbaugh Letter, and I predicted to Governor Palin then that much of her book would be ignored in light of the dirt that she was supposedly dishing from the campaign. So Governor Palin what I'd like to do here is go some different directions from what we did in the newsletter interview and start with the economy. We have 10.2% unemployment. We see no end in sight. The administration and others are suggesting next year could be just as bad with unemployment going up to 11%. What would you do differently than is being done now?

GOV. PALIN: It's over 10%, and in fact it could be closer to 17 or 18 when you consider those who have kind of given up and are not applying for unemployment benefits. So it's bad, it's really bad and then of course Fed Chair Bernanke announced that there are still weak job prospects for the very short term and probably long term, and that's an uncomfortable place for our country to be. What we need to do is shift gears and really head in another direction because what we're doing right now with the Fed, it's not working. We need to cut taxes on the job creators. This is all about jobs, creating jobs. We have to ramp up industry here in America, and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on and growing more. But those commonsense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators, that's not even being discussed. In fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like Obama wants to go.

RUSH: You mean that you don't even hear it being discussed on the Republican side or within the administration?

GOV. PALIN: Within the administration, and as it is discussed on the Republican side, Republicans need to be bolder about it. Independents need to be bolder about that solution that has got to be considered and plugged in. This is the only solution that will be successful. We need to rehash some history that proves its success. Let's go back to what Reagan did in the early eighties and stay committed to those commonsense free market principles that worked. He faced a tougher recession than what we're facing today. He cut those taxes, ramped up industry, and we pulled out of that recession. We need to revisit that.

RUSH: Why do you think this administration is ignoring that blueprint? What is their ultimate objective here? They're sitting in the middle of abject failure of their number-one stated goal, and that's job creation. So what are they really trying to do here do you think?

GOV. PALIN: Well, you wonder, you wonder because history proves what will work and you wonder if they're realizing that and if it's just perhaps a stubbornness at this point that they are so committed to going down this road of growing government and interjecting the Feds' control in the private sector more and more, which will prove to be more failure. I don't know if it's obstinate thinking that they're engaged in right now or if they truly just do not believe what the free market, free enterprise economic solutions are that built up this country.

RUSH: Do you think this is going to be a major issue in the congressional elections in 2010, and if so, how would you advise Republicans to pursue it?

GOV. PALIN: It better be a major issue, absolutely. Of course, national security will be, too, and hopefully we'll talk a little bit about some of the decisions being made in that arena that cause so many of us concern but, yeah, the economy, that's what it's going to be because it's all about jobs, it's all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious, so commonsense that need to be plugged in. And those are Republican, they're commonsense conservative principles that we just need to apply.

RUSH: New York-23 is being portrayed as a race in which you and I -- because we supposedly went up there -- handpicked Doug Hoffman, he supposedly lost, even though that race, they still haven't finished counting the votes. It's two weeks! This is not Chicago. They haven't finished counting the votes. He says he wishes he could un-concede now. But they're trying to diminish conservatism, and I think in the process intimidate the Republican Party from going in that direction. What's your read on New York-23?

GOV. PALIN: I think this is exciting. It's encouraging. No matter the outcome even with his recount of some of those, well, uncounted ballots, it's exciting that the race is going to be even closer, and it's a clearer and clearer picture that what Americans are seeking, even in a district there in New York, they are seeking commonsense, conservative solutions to all the challenges that we're facing. I'm glad to see this.

RUSH: So the positive thing there is that the Republican Party was rebuffed in nominating essentially a RINO, a liberal?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think what you saw there is -- and of course it's not just the Republican machine, it's the Democrat machine, too. You know, if you're not the anointed one within the machine, sometimes you have a much tougher row to hoe and that's what Hoffman faced. He was the underdog. I think great timing for him, though, to stand strong on his conservative credentials and essentially come out of nowhere and prove that an American without that resume, without that machine backing can truly make a difference in an election like this.

RUSH: Well, now, you used the term, "If you're not the anointed one by the party machine, you're the underdog and you have a tough row to hoe." Based on things that I read, the Republican establishment would not anoint you to be a nominee of their party should you choose to go that way. I'm not asking you the question because I know you're not going to answer and give away what your plans are in 2012.
GOV. PALIN: (chuckles)

RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?

GOV. PALIN: Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business. It's not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues. It's more of a business -- and, no, I'm not a part of that. So if they're going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no. I'll never be a part of that. But hopefully we're going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we're going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we're going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate.

RUSH: All right, independents, slash, third party. A lot of people -- mistakenly, in my view -- are looking at New York-23 as evidence that, see, a third party could actually do well. But that's not a good example because there was no primary there. As you said, the party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava on the Republican side and a Democrat. Had there been a primary, New York-23 would not have been constituted as it was. So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can't be brought around?

GOV. PALIN: You know, to be brutally honest, I think that it's a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America's political system. And we are a two-party system. Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don't think America is ready for that. I think that it is... Granted it's quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that's what will remain. And I say that, though, acknowledging that I'm not an obsessive panther, I understand why people -- good people like my own husband -- refuse to register in a party. Todd's not a Republican and yet he's got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent. But in answer to your question, I don't think that the third party movement will be what's necessary to usher in some commonsense conservative ideals.

RUSH: Now, you mentioned independents. We need to get independents. Independents right now are abandoning the Democrat Party. They did so in New Jersey. They did so in Virginia. And the White House pretty much proves this because the White House was out prior to the election saying, "Ah, Republican Party identification in polls is as low as it's ever been." Therefore, for Republicans to win these races there had to be independents moving in their direction. Now, I know you're not in politics now but you have political experience. I'm not in politics. I've never gone out and gotten votes. I've always been curious about the professional politicians' insistence that we go out and "get independents." Sure you want to shore up the base. But these magical, whatever it is, 20% of people that are not identified or do not self-identify themselves with either party, what's the way to get them?

GOV. PALIN: I think just naturally independents are going to gravitate towards that Republican agenda and Republican platform because the planks in our platform are the strongest to build a healthy America. We're all about cutting taxes and shrinking government and respecting the inherent rights of the individual and strengthening families and respecting life and equality. You have to shake your head and say, "Who wouldn't embrace that? Who wouldn't want to come on over?" They don't have to necessarily be registered within the Republican Party in order to hook up with us and join us with that agenda standing on those planks. In Alaska, about 70% of Alaskans are independent. So that's my base. That's where I am from and that's been my training ground, is just implementing commonsense conservative solutions. Independents appreciate that. You're going to see more and more of that attraction to the GOP by these independents as the days go on.

RUSH: If the GOP articulates what you just articulated. I've always believed the way to get them... Reagan got them by just being who he was, articulating conservatism. Conservatism is nothing different than the founding principles of the country. Therefore, the key to getting independents is Republicans who can articulate those beliefs.

GOV. PALIN: You know another key to this, too, is to not hesitate duking it out within the party. This is what I appreciate about the Republican Party. We have contested, aggressive, competitive primaries. We're not like this herd mentality like a bunch of sheep -- with the fighting instincts of sheep, as Horowitz would say -- like some in the Democrat Party; where, heaven forbid, you take a stand and you oppose somebody within your own party because it's the right thing to do. I appreciate that in the Republican Party. Some on the other side say -- you know, they're observing what goes on in the GOP and say -- "That's infighting, and they can't get along, and there's no consensus there." No. This is healthy debate, good competition that makes candidates work harder. It makes for a better product, if you will, at the end of the day. I appreciate that about our party.

RUSH: We are talking to Governor Sarah Palin. We take a brief prosperity time-out. We'll be back and continue with Governor Palin right after this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And we're back. Our remaining moments with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, starting her book tour today. Let's talk about your book tour, your career in general, Governor Palin. Who are you trying to reach, and for what purpose, with the book and your book tour? What's your goal here?

GOV. PALIN: I'm not trying to reach the liberal elites in this country, and it's a good thing I'm not trying to, because I'm not succeeding there. Just everyday, hardworking Americans who want government back on their side and I want to help them have their voice be heard. And the book is all about that, and the book is about my record and my accomplishments as a mayor and as a governor that kind of lay the foundation for Americans to see where it was that I was and how I got to where I am. It was just a lot of hard work and it was a lot of very commonsense measures that I undertook politically and practically speaking, and the book is about that, and hopefully people will read it and enjoy it and learn something from it.

RUSH: What's our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don't produce anything yet?

GOV. PALIN: I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is... It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don't think Americans are even told anymore if it's global warming or just climate change. And I don't attribute all the changes to man's activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms. And our greatest challenge with energy is that we're not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters. It's ridiculous that we are circulating hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign countries, asking them to ramp up production so that we can purchase it from them -- especially from the regimes that can control us via energy, using it as a weapon against us, potentially. It's nonsense that this administration and past administrations haven't really understood yet that inherent link between energy and security. I think more and more Americans are waking up to the fact, though, and we will hopefully see changes there soon.

RUSH: Vice President Biden chided you, saying, "It's a little bit more complicated," Governor Palin, than "Drill, Baby, Drill," which is one of your chapter titles. What's complicated about drilling for oil?

GOV. PALIN: Exactly. What is complicated about tapping into abundant, safe domestic supplies that could provide stability for our country and security for our country? I know Alaska has billions of barrels of oil underfoot, and we have the natural gas that's waiting to be tapped, too; and other states do, too. It's not that complicated. It's political, and that's what is the shame in this, is that for political reasons we're not allowing to tap these domestic supplies.
RUSH: What are your thoughts on the congressional health care reform bills going through the House and the Senate?

GOV. PALIN: Well, we don't really know, do we, what's in that Senate version, the Senate consideration? It will be soon but we have no idea of costs. We don't know how many will be insured. We're waiting to hear that. We don't know if the tax funding of abortions will be in this new version that's sitting over on the Senate side. We don't know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment. There are so many questions unanswered. I don't like the idea, in general, of the federal government thinking it needs to take over health care -- which essentially this is -- and control one-sixth of our economy. Not when there are commonsense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country, like allowing the intra- and interstate competition with insurers, tort reform, cutting down on the waste and fraud that the Obama administration insists if we just did that we'll pay for this one-point-some trillion-dollar health care reform package. So lots of commonsense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over.

RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we're facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we're going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: "We win, you lose." The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he's asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we're going to end this thing with our victory. We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That's a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen. We need to look at halting Iran's imports of refined petroleum products. They're quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

RUSH: Thirty seconds: Immigration. Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?

GOV. PALIN: I can't do it in 30 seconds but just know that... You know, let me put it simply: Illegal immigrants are called "illegal" for a reason. We need to crack down on this. We need to listen to the border states where the governors there have some solutions and we need to get serious about that.

RUSH: Governor Palin, thanks very much. It's been a pleasure. It's been fun. Thanks for last week as well and good luck on what I know is going to be a life-changing book and book tour.

GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you. Keep up the good work.

RUSH: Thank you.

GOV. PALIN: And all the best to all your listeners.

Share/Save/Bookmark

AN INTERACTIVE MAP OF OBAMA'S BOGUS STIMULUS JOB CLAIMS


View Bogus jobs 'created or saved' by the Stimulus in a larger map

Keeping track of Obama's phony "Stimulus" jobs "created or saved," is getting more difficult by the day, especially since there is no recognized method of measuring "saved" jobs. It has never been a valid statistic, but the administration finds it convenient to use this imaginary statistic to pump up their failed stimulus plan.


News reports, seemingly daily, are reporting more and more of the phony claims of jobs created (or "saved") by the Obama Stimulus Plan. However, as hard as it is to keep up with the lies, it's even more difficult to see any positive results of the mammoth debt bomb that came with a promise that unemployment wouldn't go over 8%. Now it's 10.2%.


The above interactive map, courtesy of The Washington Examiner, is a one-stop shop that documents the exaggerated and imaginary jobs claims. There are currently 75,000 phony jobs that have been identified.


The map reflects reports from The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, the Sacramento Bee, The New York Times, USA Today, the Las Vegas Sun, the Detroit Free Press, the New York Post, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Associated Press, the Chicago Tribune, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. It remains a work in progress because relatively few newspapers have scrutinized stimulus spending so far.



Share/Save/Bookmark
 

"Tolerance and Apathy are the Last Virtues of a Dying Society" -- ARISTOTLE