Obama Is To Lincoln What Mao Was To Mother Teresa

Liberals couldn’t resist from comparing Barack Obama to our arguably greatest president, Abraham Lincoln.  A couple of articles from US News & World Report and the LA Times should suffice to show such a comparison was diligently manufactured.

Is such a comparison valid?

Maybe not so much…

So I said to him, “Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain’t Abe Lincoln.”

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

……..Abraham Lincoln

When you think about liberals comparing Obama to Lincoln, it rather reminds of Obama’s White House Communications Director Anita Dunn comparing Mao Tse-Tung to Mother Teresa.  It’s not enough to point out that such fails as an “apples to oranges” comparison; it’s more like a “turds to oranges” comparison.

Barack Obama And The Audacity Of Unawareness

Got this in an email.  Liked it.  Thought I’d pass it on this way:

The Audacity of Unawareness

April 15th, 2009 5:03 pm Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed today that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best). but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?
This much we know:
- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America .
- He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
- He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya .
- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill..
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.
PLEASE,,, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy.
You have three years, nine-and-a-half
months to come up with an answer .

Why Can’t Republicans Be Civil, Like Democrats?

The following is a video of Democrat Ike Skelton courteously addressing his Republican colleague Todd Akin on the House floor:

[Youtube link]

From the AP via the Huffington Post:

Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., had just finished addressing his Republican colleague Todd Akin Thursday.

Skelton then turned to the side and muttered “stick it up your ass.”

[Snip]

The dispute arose over opposition from Akin and other Republicans to inclusion in a major defense policy bill of a provision extending federal hate crimes law to include violence against gays.

Akin, a member of the Armed Services Committee, had spoken before Skelton, saying the hate crimes measure was “poisonous enough in fact that we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place in this bill.”

The site Traditional Values explains why the hate crimes bill is itself so hateful:

The so-called hate crimes bill will be used to lay the legal foundation and framework to investigate, prosecute and persecute pastors, business owners, Bible teachers, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, Christian counselors, religious broadcasters and anyone else whose actions are based upon and reflect the truths found in the Bible.

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation. A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

Supporters of H.R. 1913 claim the legislation only covers bodily injury.  In actuality, it opens the door to the possibility that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally, based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or the criminal code– and could include conduct or speech that aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, procures or causes the act to be done by another. Ultimately, a pastor’s sermon concerning religious beliefs and teachings on homosexuality and gender confused behaviors could be considered to cause violence and will be punished or at least investigated.

Also, by requiring criminal investigations to focus on a suspect’s thoughts and specific intent, federal law enforcement agencies will now be able to focus on a suspect’s religious beliefs, membership in religious organizations, speech and activities conducted by a church, and any past statements made to, or by, a suspect, all in the name of determining whether a suspect acted with a prohibited “bias.”

Democrats call it “hatecrime”; George Orwell called it “thoughtcrime.” Same difference.

Stop and think about it: what is the fundamental right that the Bill of Rights guarantees us?  The freedom of speech.  Because without the freedom of speech, we don’t have any other freedom at all.

And now Democrats are trying to attack not only our freedom of speech, via new iterations of the Fairness Doctrine that are clearly intended to strip free speech rights away from conservatives via the radio and the internet, but they are even attacking our very thoughts and possible motives.

But Democrats welcome dialogue and debate.  So, obviously, when a Republican respectfully offers his disagreement regarding inserting a bill that has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH DEFENSE IN A DEFENSE BILL, the Democrat response is nothing if not civil and polite.

So the next time a liberal whines that Republicans and conservatives are hatefully degenerating the debate, just say, “Stick it up your ass” – and then point out that you’re merely quoting a Democrat.

Afghanistan and Iran: Weakling President Obama Confronted By ‘Strong’ Candidate Obama

Anne Bayefsky yesterday characterized Obama’s foreign policy as “the mouse who roared.”

Words don’t mean anything unless a leader has the character, integrity, courage, and resolve to stand behind them.

In July 15, 2008, candidate Obama roared regarding Afghanistan:

“I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month,” Obama proclaimed in a major foreign policy address on July 15, 2008. “And that’s why, as president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

In March 27, 2009, President Obama roared:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

But now, just six months later, Obama is hiding from his generals and refusing to even LOOK AT his own General’s (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) troop request which will be necessary to carry out Obama’s own strategy.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Obama doesn’t even want to look at it yet.

Here’s the current situation:

Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:

“Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.”

Here’s the current situation:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House. Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday he isn’t ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.

Here’s the current situation:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

The roaring mouse has been replaced by a timid, weak, pandering, patronizing, appeasing – and most certainly DITHERING – president.

Bush used to talk to his troop commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq every week; Obama has spoken JUST ONCE with Gen. McChrystal in the last seventy days.

Obama has spent more time talking with David Letterman than he has his key general in Afghanistan!!!

Clear implication to McChrystal: Talk to the hand.

A recent article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

Which answers the question as to why our troops so overwhelmingly supported Bush, and sat on their hands when their new commander-in-chief addressed them.

Charles Krauthammer points out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ‘04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Reminds me of Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who said, “I believe myself that … this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.”  Reminds me of Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn openly acknowledging the fact that good news for American troops in Iraq would actually be bad news for Democrats.

The party of cut-and-run is already preparing to cutand run.  On the war they said we needed to fight and win in their campaign rhetoric.

By the way, Obama’s refusal to use the word “victory” is right here.  Nearly a year to the day after Obama said “This is a war we need to win,” Obama said (you can go here for the interview):

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.

Well, first of all, Obama is factually wrong in his history: Hirohito didn’t sign the surrender to MacArthur.  Secondly, he is utterly morally wrong in his foreign policy.

Let’s compare Obama’s refusal to pursue victory with the strategic vision of a great president:

“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s America: winner; Obama’s America: loser.

Let’s turn now to Obama’s abject failure in Iran.

In his April 16th, 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama roared:

“I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

But he did nothing.  NOTHING.  And now Iran already has them at their whim.

And  in The Jerusalem Post, we get a picture of the REAL Obama:

The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 26 this way: “[T]he Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran… They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran… Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Obama had a historic opportunity at the United Nations gathering: he was the first American president EVER to serve as the chair of the UN Security Council.  He had the power to shape the agenda, and confront Iran over its now overwhelmingly clear nuclear weapons program.

He pissed his opportunity away, and drove NOTHING.

Anne Bayefsky described how Obama utterly failed to force any kind of showdown with Iran – even when the opportunity was literally handed to him.  She concludes by saying, “There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.”

Remember that pandering, appeasing, pathetic weakness when Iran gets the bomb and the ballistic missile system to deliver it.  Remember that when they launch wave after wave of terror attack with impunity.  Remember that when they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send the price of gasoline skyrocketing to $15 a gallon.

As for Israel?

Only a brain-dead and witless minority of 4% of Israelis believe Obama hasn’t sold them down the river; by contrast, 88% of Israelis believed Bush was pro-Israel.

Hearkening back to the Carter Administration which Obama’s frighteningly resembles, Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wants to make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

Apparently, Saudi Arabia is a better friend of Israel than the United States.

I believe God will supernaturally protect Israel when they are attacked by an enemy that will be emboldened because of American abandonment of Israel and a perception of American weakness.

Alas, America won’t be so fortunate.

I had crystal clear clarity when I heard that Barack Obama’s pastor of 23 years shouted:

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America, God damn America!”

And Barack Obama’s incredibly weak and pandering response was that:

Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

I believe that God WILL damn America under this President.  And I believe that that damnation has already began.

Even Europe Recognizes Obama’s Spinelessness

The UK Telegraph offers this take on our “President Pantywaist”:

Barack Obama: President Pantywaist restores the satellite states to their former owner

By Gerald Warner  Last updated: September 18th, 2009

Barack Obama’s chances of re-election in three and a half years’ time may be evaporating at unprecedented speed, but his presidential ambitions could still be realised in another direction. He would be a shoo-in to win the next Russian presidential election, so high is his popularity now running in the land of the bear and the knout. Obama has done more to restore Russia’s hegemonial potential in Eastern and Central Europe than even Vladimir Putin.

His latest achievement has been to restore the former satellite states to dependency on Moscow, by wimping out of the missile defence shield plan. This follows on his surrender last July when he voluntarily sacrificed around a third of America’s nuclear capability for no perceptible benefit beyond a grim smile from Putin. If there is one thing that fans the fires of aggression it is appeasement.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, 58 per cent of Poles were in favour of the missile shield. But small nations must assess the political will of larger powers. Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US president sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice: in 1938 and 1945.

If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without openly acknowledging it, and co-operate with their dangerous neighbour, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.

Bringing unstable states like Georgia into Nato would be a liability, not a defence. The crazy notion of a US-Nato-Russian combined defence policy has all the staying power of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Ronald Reagan, assisted by Margaret Thatcher, implemented the sensible principle that Russia, from the time of Peter the Great, respects only strength and steely political will. A pushover in the Oval Office is the best news Russian expansionists have heard since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Barack Obama is selling out America and, by extension, the entire West. This is a catastrophe for America and the wider world.

This comes on the heels of French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s take on Obama as literally living in a dream world:

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were every bit as amazing:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

Political Castaway provides a quick recap of Obama’s foreign policy:

Iraq: less stable; Americans due to withdrawal; violence on the rise.

Iran engaged; engagement failed; Iran emboldened; Iran nuclear program moving forward with unabashed zeal.

Hamas supported; Israel—America’s one true ally in the Middle East—betrayed.

Afghanistan: situation volatile; commander requests more troops to win; Obama resistant.

Libyan government emboldened; crazy UN speech smiled on by US.

Missile Defense culled; Russia appeased.

Guantanamo set to close; no solution to do so; nation less safe; terrorists recently arrested.

He didn’t mention other events such as North Korea repeatedly thumbing their nuclear-tipped nose at us or Obama making a mockery out of ethics and law by supporting dictator Zelaya over the Honduran Constitution.  But it’s still a pretty good list for brief rundown purposes.

Here’s my caption for all of this:

ACORN Helping Illegal Immigrants Get Sweetheart Home Loans, Crash Mortgage System

(Youtube link)

When I hear “maximum eligible participation in all government programs,” I think “Cloward-Piven strategy” (and see also here) and the intentional destruction of our economic system.  Social radicals want to overload the system with too many “clients” and too many people getting benefits so that when the system collapses under the weight of all of those subsidies and benefits they will be able to create “change.”

Leftist Disrupts Tea Party, Commits Assault

If you’re counting on every seeing this footage on NBC, please don’t hold your breath.

Pro-Obamacare Tea Party Crasher SMASHES ATTENDEE In the Face With His Elbow & Disrupts Meeting (Video)

More Hope & Change–
Barack Obama gave his marching orders:

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama To His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”

His supporters followed through…
But, don’t expect the state-run media to report on this.

The Tucson area Tea Party Coalition held a meeting at Rincon High School in Tucson this weekend. Over 1,000 people showed up at the event… including one violent counter-protester.

The pro-Obama thug disrupted the meeting screaming– marched to the front of the room holding a sign——
And, then SLAMMED AN ATTENDEE IN THE FACE with his elbow!

Here’s the video:

Hat Tip Rod

*** Here is the video of the pro-Obama thug disrupting the meeting before he smashed the attendee with his elbow. And KGUN has a clear shot of the assault.
The protester identified himself as Don Alvarez.

The Tucson Tea Party has much more on the otherwise successful event.

Don Alvarez, who committed a violent act of assault against a man who was clearly only trying to talk with him (the man who was assaulted held back his companion who was rushing the protester following the assault) actually had the balls to claim that HE had been assaulted.

Thank God for video-camera-equipped cell phones.

I very much hope that the man is arrested and charged for his act of criminal assault.

And that this frankly fascist leftwing demagoguery attacking people for exercising their rights to peaceably assemble will finally come to an end as it’s revealed for the farce it is and always has been.

Obama Tanking As America Realizes It picked A Zero For President

The American people are quickly beginning to realize what Obama really stands for:

Oh, NBC and the mainstream media will continue to broadcast polls of “Americans” or “registered voters.”  Most Americans don’t vote, and there are a lot of “registered voters” who haven’t bothered to vote in years.  It’s the polls of “likely voters” that are most accurate – and these are the polls that show that Obama is deepest in the toilet.

Zogby: Obama Hits Record Low in Poll

Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:07 PM

By: David A. Patten

President Barack Obama’s popularity has plummeted to a record low, with just 45 percent of voters now approving of his performance, according to the latest Zogby International poll.

Asked whether they approve or disapprove of the president’s job performance, just 45.3 percent of likely voters say they approve. That compares with 50.5 percent who disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

The results are a strong indication that contentious national debate over healthcare reform has taken a major toll on the president’s popularity.

Those numbers also indicate that Obama clearly is in serious political trouble, Fox News analyst and best-selling author Dick Morris tells Newsmax.

“As soon as Obama dropped below 52 percent . . . he was leaking real voters who had backed him in November,” Morris tells Newsmax. “Now that he is down to 45 percent among likely voters . . . he is in deep political trouble.”

Of greatest concern to Obama may well be his decline among all-important independent voters. Just 37.5 percent of self-identified independents say they approve of how Obama is handling the presidency. That compares with 59.2 percent of independents who disapprove.

“There is nothing counterintuitive in any of these numbers,” pollster John Zogby of Zogby International tells Newsmax. “The president has clearly taken a slide — most especially with independent voters, who play such an important role in any legislation or policy support.

“Interestingly, the president had been making some inroads with groups like investors, and frequent Walmart shoppers . . . both typically conservative,” Zogby says. “However, he has slipped considerably with them in this poll.”

Zogby adds: “The healthcare plan appears to be consolidating conservative opposition and scaring independent voters.”

Pundits pay especially close attention to trends involving swing voters.

Continued evidence of declining popularity there will ratchet up the pressure on congressional blue dogs and other conservative Democrats to go their own way on controversial proposals such as public-option healthcare and energy cap-and-trade, knowing they can’t rely on presidential coattails to prop them up with voters.

As expected, Obama continues to score well with Democrats, who give him an 83.9 percent approval rating. But among GOP voters, Obama has flat-lined at a 5.7 percent approval rating — a problem in itself for a president who promised to bring a new, bipartisan spirit to Washington politics.

Obama’s decline has been startling. Various polls had his approval rating at well over 60 percent at the 100-day mark of his presidency.

By mid-June, his approval number had dipped to 51 percent. In July, it dropped further to 48 percent of likely voters.

Experts say the failure of the $787 billion stimulus to deliver on Obama’s promise of massive jobs creation, the ongoing economic woes, and the increasingly bitter fight over Democrats’ determination to push the government-subsidized, public-option healthcare reforms are among the reasons for Obama’s rapid descent.

“Clearly, the healthcare reform package is dragging him down,” Morris tells Newsmax, “and will drag every Democrat down unless they realize that they cannot afford to alienate the elderly of America by cutting Medicare and rationing medical care.”

The Zogby International interactive poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

How shall I put this?  I told you so.

I saw a vision with perfect clarity when I heard Obama’s pastor for 23 years preach his messages of fundamentally anti-American hate.  As Obama’s fellow congregants leaped to their feet and cheered as Jeremiah Wright said, “No, no, no.  Not God bless America.  God damn America!” I saw the future.  And God damn America is a terrible future for this country.

Right now, even Obama’s leftwing loon base is bitterly disappointed with him – which is a terrible thing for Obama given that he himself is a leftwing loon.  Paul Krugman writes a factually unhinged piece demanding Obama make the entire health care system like Medicare when Medicare is an unfunded black hole of some $61.6 trillion that is going to go bankrupt in 2017.  It is demented to think that such a crumbling house of cards should serve as the basis of our entire health care system.  Particularly when top Canadian health care officials are even now acknowledging that their socialized system is not only sick but “imploding.” The one thing I can agree on with Krugman is that Obama has lost the trust of the American people.

ObamaCare Supporters Outspend Opponents 3-1

I am sick of the lies, which is another way of saying I am sick of the Democrats.

How many times have we been told about the evil special interests opposing ObamaCare and the obscene profits being made by private health insurers who – gasp – are so depraved that they support the free market system?

Well, riddle me this: how come ObamaCare special interests are outspending opponents by a 3-1 margin?

Just where are the REAL “un-American” “evil mongers”?  Turns out they’re in the Obama Camp.

Obama Backers Outspend Conservative Opponents Nearly 3-to-1 on Healthcare Ads

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Supporters of President Barack Obama’s healthcare plans are outspending rivals nearly 3-to-1 even as Democrats complain about the grass-roots protests that have broken out around the country.

Those backing the administration’s plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system radically have spent nearly $24 million worth of advertising, compared with just $9 million from opponents, according to The New York Times.

“I’m up against a dozen groups running ads that will spend between $50 million and $80 million to promote a public plan and promote an employer mandate, regardless of the cost,” said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for governmental affairs for the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has produced ads attacking the Obama administration’s ideas about healthcare. “We’re trying to create a dialogue rather than cede the ground.”

An additional $24 million has been spent broadly in support of overhauling the system without backing a specific plan. And even that figure doesn’t include much of the money being spent by think thanks, sympathetic political media sites, and other elements of the Democratic Party’s media machine.

And it’s time to take a little look at some of that massive spending and just who is getting the dough.  From Michelle Malkin:

Axelrod’s profits: Uh, who’s on the take from the drug lobby again?!?!

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 18, 2009 11:03 PM

I’ve reported several times over the last few months on Team Obama’s hefty funding from the health care industry/drug lobby — see here and here — as well on the deep pockets behind the Astroturf HCAN/SEIU/ACORN campaign.

Culture of Corruption also homes in on the cozy cash deals involving Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Sher, and David Axelrod to create faux grass-roots support for the University of Chicago Medical Center’s patient-dumping scheme.

Now, Bloomberg’s Timothy Burger brings news about Axelrod’s latest health care conflicts of interest that will come as no surprise to those who have fully informed themselves of the Chicago way. While White House press secretary Robert Gibbs assails the motives of grass-roots activists by falsely smearing the movement as corporate-funded shills, Barack Obama’s own senior adviser and chief Astroturfer raked in millions of dollars from Big Pharma.

Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.

One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan. The other firm is Washington-based GMMB Campaign Group, where partner Jim Margolis was also an Obama strategist.

This year, AKPD and GMMB received $12 million in advertising business from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, that is seeking to build support for a health-care overhaul, said the coalition’s spokesman, Jeremy Van Ess.

You won’t be surprised to learn that the HEN coalition also includes left-wing Families USA, the sellouts at the AARP, and the Purple Army at the SEIU.

What’s Axelrod’s old firm — which employs one of his sons– up to now? When exposed to sunlight, reconstitute, rename, and spin hard:

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama’s victory, government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it’s due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod’s son, Michael, still works there. He didn’t return a phone call. The firm’s Web site continues to feature David Axelrod’s work on the Obama campaign.

…At the White House, Axelrod’s role in the health-care debate ranges from Sunday talk show appearances to meetings with House and Senate lawmakers…

Van Ess said HEN is now dormant. PhRMA and three other members of HEN, plus the Washington-based Federation of American Hospitals, have created another coalition, Americans for Stable Quality Care, which last week announced a new $12 million ad campaign to promote health-care overhaul. GMMB and AKPD are also working on the new coalition’s ads.

Hey, Bobby Gibbs: Tell us again. Who’s funded by the evil health care industry? And who’s motives should you be questioning now? According to Bloomberg, AKPD continues to work with Axelrod “on ’strategy and research’ for the Democratic National Committee.” Why no full disclosure until now? Why didn’t Axelrod recuse himself from his Obamcare lobbying TV appearances given the strong, interest-conflicted odor emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania?

Hey, White House Reality Check: Smell anything fishy, yet?

These people are the very worse kind of liars and demagogues.  And one day mainstream media propagandists will one day be burning in hell with them.  They shamelessly report crap they should be ashamed of day after day after day.

Do you remember all the unrelenting attacks directed at Dick Cheney over his ties to Halliburton and its Iraq War profits?  I guess a scandal is only a scandal when liberals want it to be a scandal.

Nancy Pelosi To Anti-Bush War Protestors: ‘I’m A Fan Of Disruptions’

January 17, 2006, in San Francisco.  Nancy Pelosi addresses an audience of anti-Bush protesters.

Youtube video

Pelosi accuses George Bush of “stopping democracy.”  She tells her San Francisco audience, “Thank you for having spoken out.”  She says, “People are starting to speak out.  And do you know why?  Because they’re hearing at home.  There’s nothing more eloquent…”

She says, “I’m a fan of disrupters, people who make change.”

And then she says, “So let’s not question each other’s patriotism when we have this very honest debate that our country expects and deserves.”

Now she’s calling American’s “un-American” and openly comparing them to Nazis.  The difference?  The people she’s championing were a LOT MORE DISRUPTIVE:

Four hundred protest President Bush at United Nations

Protestors nationwide mark 5th anniversary of Iraq war with outrage

Iraq war protesters disrupt Chicago Easter Mass with fake blood

Attempted citizen’s arrest of Karl Rove results in four arrests by police

Some turn violent in march to GOP convention

It’s interesting how the New York Times hyped loud demonstrations by a couple dozen war protesters, versus how they have since attacked the grass roots protests occurring in town halls.  Someone collected assorted articles from the New York Times during the years 2003-2004 to show how they treated protests in their coverage.

They kind of forgot about what they did during the Bush years.

Compare it to what they’re doing today for yourselves.

Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have compared town hall opponents to the Democrat’s health plan as Nazis and fascists.  That’s hardly a new trick from their play book.  One ordinary guy took it upon himself to search out references to Bush being compared to Hitler by the left – including many mainstream journalists.

It never ceases to be strange to me that the socialists in our country constantly compare their socialist-despising opponents to the National Socialist German Workers Party.  Hitler wanted the giant powerful government apparatus that liberals crave, not the small and limited central government conservatives yearn for.

It is interesting that Benito Mussolini, dictator of Italy – the father of fascism and adored by the American left in the 1920s and early 1930s – invented the term “totalitarian” to describe his project.  As Jonah Goldberg points out, “Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside; where truly no child was left behind.”

Totalitarianism was sold under the packaging of an attractive, helpful face urging people to turn to the government to seek solutions or redress for their problems and grievances.  The ugly, oppressive face came later.

Ask yourself, as you look at what’s been going on for the last eight months – and yes, compare it to the previous 8 years under Bush – who is really pursuing totalitarian, fascist policies: conservatives or liberals?