Posts Tagged ‘dick durbin’

The Democrat Party Surpasses Itself For Total Lack Of Leadership And Chaos And Deceit On Vote To Add God, Jerusalem Back Into Party Platform

September 5, 2012

One wit in Wisconsin said it best: The Democrats voted against God before they voted for Him.  Not that they actually DID vote for God, as you will see.

Yesterday the Democrat Party took a vote to adopt a new party platform that specifically purged language of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

After that vote, Brett Bair, anchor of Fox News Special Report, had a bizarre interview with Dick Durbin.

I have seen the same look that was on Dick Durbin’s face three times in my life.  Once was when I was a soldier and inadvertently cornered a large nasty rat during a training exercise; once was when I lived in Oregon and inadvertently cornered a possum when I was trying to take the trash to the curb; and once was when I was looking at trapped, cornered, vicious Dick Durbin trying to explain why Democrats had just purged language about God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol from its platform:

Notice that Brett Bair is merely trying to ask a VERY legitimate question: why did you remove that language from your platform? And notice that the rabid freaking rodent in Durbin comes out and he not only refuses to EVER answer the question in spite of being REPEATEDLY asked, but demonizes Fox News and Brett Bair personally merely for daring to ASK the question.

But it quickly became apparent to anyone who WASN’T crawling with demons that what the Democrats had just done to purge God and kick Israel to the curb was a mega-giant loser.

In a bizarre display of deceit and total inability to exercise anything even remotely CLOSE to leadership, the Democrat National Convention gave us the following utterly pathetic display:

I loved it when Antonio Villaraigosa said, “The chair recognizes…” and “In the opinion of the chair two-thirds have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted…”  Because it reminded me of Clint Eastwood and his conversation with the EMPTY damn chair.   Because if there’s anybody sitting in the “chair” of the Democrat Party, it is a fat, bloated damn demon.

Did it sound to you in the video like the “ayes” won by the required two-thirds margin?  If it did I’ve got four words for you: “Stupid Idiot Deaf Liar.”  If anything, the “no” vote was LOUDER and there was no freaking way the voice vote carried.  But the Democrats have always been a party of fascists masquerading as populists and so the leadership just did whatever the hell it wanted to do – which was try to sweep a real disgrace under the rug as quickly as possible.

This was just bizarre on every single level under the sun.  This is the party you want leading America?  Seriously?  The party of evil clueless clowns and rabid fools?

Now, I couldn’t tell you whether Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a clueless clown or a rabid fool if I had to pick just one, but here is what the chair of the Democratic National Convention said:

CNN White House correspondent Brianna Keilar, on the floor of the convention with Wasserman Schultz, asked about the process of changing the platform, the three voice votes, and the “discord.”

Wasserman Schultz amazingly replied, “There wasn’t any discord.”

Keilar responded that it seemed like people on the floor didn’t feel it was a two-thirds vote.

Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied, “It absolutely was two-thirds.”

Continuing to press, Keilar noted that this seemed to be a change in policy from yesterday by the Obama campaign because they made it clear Tuesday that they stood by the platform with the controversial language regarding Jerusalem and the word “God” left out.

“No, no, it’s not actually,” Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied.

At the end of the interview, the segment switched back to CNN’s booth at the convention where Anderson Cooper said, “I just got to go to the panel with this. I mean, Debbie Wasserman Schultz said it wasn’t a change of language, there was no discord that we saw, and it was a two-thirds vote.

“And it was a technical oversight,” added David Gergen.

“I mean, that’s an alternate universe,” replied Cooper. [...]

Cooper added a few moments later, “I just think from a reality standpoint, you can defend it as the head of the DNC, but to say flat out there was no discord is just not true.”
 
At that point, John King fabulously said, “If I had a follow-up question, it would be did she ever get away with the dog ate my homework?”
 
That led to laughter from all present making it clear that this panel was not buying the DNC chair’s explanation.

The question remains: if the Democrats AREN’T the Party of godless communism and hostility toward God’s chosen nation Israel, then why the hell did they remove it from the platform to begin with?  I think you can tell by the vote that the answer is pretty straightforward: because most Democrats ARE “Democrats” – by which I mean, “Demonic Bureaucrats“.

The other – and just as dangerous to America – reason is because the platform had merely been adopted and passed to reflect the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POLICY, as abundant evidence documents.

Obama was trying to throw Israel under the bus in 2008 but – I suppose fortunately lacking courage – he cut and ran from his statement that Jerusalem was merely one of many issues to be bargained away:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama has absolutely no regard for Israel or Jerusalem, and history proves it.  If Obama gets reelected, you can count on him to force Israel to give up Jerusalem for the pseudo-peace he will force Israel to accept so we can have Armageddon just like the God the Democrats purged from their platform told us we would have.

Obama is no friend of Israel.  That is a fact.

His call for Israel to be forced to return to its indefensible 1967 borders is more than proof enough of that all by itself.

At least ABC had the integrity to reveal the abject hypocrisy of the Democrat Party on this.  Charlie Rose repeatedly asked Senator Charles Schumer – who is THE Democrat authority on Israel and the Middle East – “What is the president’s position on Jerusalem?”  And Schumer refused to answer (because the American people would not LIKE Obama’s answer):

The new platform has still purged the language denying the “right of return” and the rejection of the terrorist group Hamas as well as the issue of the 1967 borders.  Any Israel-loving Jew or American who votes for the Democrat Party is an idiot or worse.

The Democrat Party is an evil, rabid, radical party.  It is the party of God damn America.  It has nothing to do with the Democrat Party that existed prior to the 1968 Democrat National Convention when the very radicals who now dominate it violently took it over.

Update: For the record, it was being circulated that Obama was the hero who courageously demanded that the God and Jerusalem language be put back into the DNC platform.  The only problem with that is that it is an utter fabrication.  In fact Obama saw the new language prior to its being put into the platform.  So the real question becomes, “Why did Obama allow and approve the language to be taken out to begin with?”

Democrat Dick Durbin: ‘Give Me My Pork Or Else I’ll Murder Persecuted Religious Minorities All Over The Planet!’

December 10, 2011

When I say Democrats are genuinely vile, when I say that this is God damn America, please understand I’m not joking.

It’s really that bad:

Federal Panel on Religious Freedom at Risk of Losing Funding at Hands of Dems
By Molly Henneberg
Published December 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Staff at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom have been told to start winding down operations.
 
Chairman Leonard Leo says the commission will have to “close the offices at the end of the day on the 16th (of December).”
 
That’s if Congress does not approve $4 million in annual funding for the independent bipartisan commission, as well as re-authorize its mission, which is to advocate for persecuted religious minorities around the world and advise the U.S. government on related policy positions.
 
But Leo says Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has put a hold on funding for the commission until Congress sets aside money for something unrelated.
 
Durbin wants the U.S. government to buy a little-used state prison in Thomson Illinois and turn it into a federal lock-up. Durbin has said it will bring 1,100 jobs to the area and over $1 billion to the region. Republicans have opposed funding for the prison because the Obama administration initially considered sending Gitmo detainees there.
 
Leo says the uncertainty of the situation is frustrating and that his commission “is a sort of a hostage in this political fight.”
 
Democratic sources strongly deny a connection between money for the commission and money for the prison. They say there is legislation moving that will keep the agency open, but Democrats will want some unspecified reforms.
 
Since Durbin’s name is connected to the matter, it will get lawmakers’ attention, according to Bob Cusack, managing editor of The Hill newspaper. Durbin “is (Majority Leader) Harry Reid’s direct deputy. He’s the No. 2 Senate Democrat. He’s got a lot of power, so when he wants something people have to listen because he controls what happens on the Senate floor.”
 
The commission sent a letter last month to President Obama, asking him to come out in support of the group and “expeditiously communicate this support to the Senate.”
 
Late Thursday, the Obama administration told Fox News it’s working with Congress to reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and “believes that a robust commission is critical to advancing religious freedom around the globe.”

Blah, blah, blah, Obama, you worthless, self-righteous, posturing punk.  When will you quit flapping your lips for once in your life and actually DO something here?

It was just a couple of days ago that I learned that Barack Obama was trying to take the Bible away from families visiting Walter Reed military hospital.  While simultaneously trying to force the militant homosexual agenda onto the rest of the world.

It shouldn’t be all that astounding that the party of 54 million abortions – and that is NINE murdered human beings for every ONE Jew that Hitler murdered during WWII – would be like this.  And here’s another way to think about that reality as we approach Christmas: this is the political party that would have strongly encouraged the teenage Virgin Mary to abort her baby and murder Christianity in her womb once for all if they had the chance.

This is God damn America.  And the beast is coming.

Democrat Dick Durbin Gives His ‘Legitimacy’ To Terrorists

March 30, 2011

We are at a point where Democrats ought to have zero credibility, and the worst thing that should ever happen to someone’s reputation would be getting caught with your face in the same picture as a known or suspected Democrat.

But while we OUGHT to be there, we’re certainly not there yet.  There are fools and communities of fools who actually respect Democrats, and stupidly and naively believe they’re decent people.

So, as asinine and in fact as outrageous as it might seem, Democrats can add their “credibility” to others.

But being truly despicable people, Democrats have a tendency to lend said “credibility” to the very worst sorts of people.  Like terrorists.

For the record, I added the labeling to make it easier to identify both the terrorists and the dumbass in the photo.

Here’s a quick description of these guys Dick Durbin says are A-OK in his book:

Pictured with Senator Durbin [that's the dumbass in the middle] is Jamal Said [the terrorist on the left], an unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case that led to criminal conviction. Said also reportedly raised money 11 years ago at an Islamic conference by asking for donations in name of a suicide bomber. More recently, he told a gathering of Muslim leaders in 2009, “We need to raise our children to know the martyrs of Gaza.”

Also in the photo [the terrorist on the right] is another unindicted terror trial coconspirator named Kifah Mustapha. According to the IPT, Mustapha serves as an imam for the Illinois Mosque Foundation. Last year days after becoming Illinois first state police chaplain, his appointment was revoked after ties to terror groups became public.

According to IPT, the Mosque Foundation has a long history of ties to terror organizations, even sponsoring a rally for a Hamas operative arrested in Israel. 

So we’ve got the cheerleader for suicide bombers and a guy who wants to radicalize our rapidly growing Muslim inmate population.

The guy who wants to raise money for suicide bombers’ families so terrorists can murder away knowing their families will be taken care of, the guy who wants the children to know these “martyrs” as heroes so the hate can continue to the next generation, is part of a murder plot against Israel’s innocent children going back decades.

And the guy who sought to be a “chaplain” so he could radicalize our prison population is part of a long effort to get the hate of Allah into our prison systems.  From an article in the Oxford Journal titled “Prison Islam in the Age of Sacred Terror“:

Research indicates that Islam is the fastest growing religion among prisoners in Western nations. In the United States, roughly 240,000 inmates have converted to the faith since the 9/11 attacks. According to federal law enforcement, Saudi-backed Wahhabi clerics have targeted these prisoners for terrorist recruitment.

An article on how state prisons are a breeding ground for radical Islam begins:

The four men accused of plotting to blow up synagogues and shoot down a plane all did stretches in state prisons – a major breeding ground for Islamic radicalization.

At least two of the suspects, James Cromitie and Onta Williams, entered the system as Baptists and were paroled as Muslims.

The concern about prisons incubating jihadists has been heightened in the debate over releasing Guantanamo terror suspects to facilities across the U.S.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has called America’s prisons “fertile ground for extremists.”

A 2006 study called “Out of the Shadows” found “tight-knit communities of Muslims in prison are ripe for radicalization, and could easily become terrorist cells.”

And the entire organization for which Durbin is lending his “credibility” is waaaaayyy beyond merely dubious.

Confronted with this, Durbin was unapologetic.  These people are perfectly fine.  What they’re doing is great.  And if you don’t want to be murdered in a giant explosion by a suicide bomber, you’re just a racist anti-Muslim bigot.

So just why do Democrats want to legitimize terrorists who want nothing more than your hot sticky jugular-vein blood all over their filfthy hands?  I now say “dumbass Democrats” rather than just “dumbass Dick Durbin” because this is just so par for the Democrat course.

Here’s Durbin’s rationale, complete with it’s own refutation:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in an attempt to address what he claims is an increase in anti-Muslim bigotry, is relying on questionable statistics and a witness with a record of opposing virtually all law enforcement attempts to deal with Islamist-inspired terrorism.

In a statement, Durbin said his hearing Tuesday on the state of Muslim civil rights in America comes “in response to a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year including Quran burnings, restrictions on mosque construction, hate crimes, hate speech, and other forms of discrimination.”

While hate crime data for 2010 has not yet been released, FBI reports in recent years show no spike in anti-Muslim attacks. Those statistics show 107 anti-Islamic incidents reported in 2009, compared to 156 anti-Muslim crimes in 2006. In both reports, race related crimes dominated, and religiously-targeted attacks involved Jews as victims about nine times more often than Muslims in 2009 and more than five times more in 2006.

Durbin is literally championing the violent Muslims who are victimizing Jews at nine times the rate in America and calling the victimizers the “victims.”

Which is to say, Democrats are consistent, in that they are always fools all the time.

And what is the Fool-in-Chief up to?  He’s joining Osama bin Laden in siding with the Libyan rebels which include al Qaeda fighters, and who are led by Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi – a man who fought Americans troops in Afghanistan

No one knows a whole lot about these Libyan rebels, and everything we do know is bad.  Jonah Goldberg quipped yesterdat that this Libyan rebellion is kind of like Pelosi’s approach: “We have to pass this rebellion so you can find out what is in it.”

A Politico story covering Durbin’s hearing said:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said it wasn’t a response to Republican Rep. Peter King’s hearings this month on post-9/11 Islamic radicalization and terrorism — but it sure felt like it.

And that’s exactly what it was, of course.  And all King’s hearings tried to do was ask a question about the domestic radicalization of American Muslims.  And even the left-leaning Washington Post acknowledged that Democrats embarrased themselves in their coming unglued over simply asking a question and seeking information.

This is not just an unfortunate moment immortalized in a picture.  This is a demonstration of the morally bankrupt philosophy of not only Dick Durbin, but the entire Democrat Party.

And as usual, the mainstream media propaganda does not want you to know which side is right and which side is wrong.

Even Democrats Recognize That Obama Is An Abject Liar On Healthcare

March 16, 2010

First of all, let’s see what Democrat Senator and liberal Dick Durbin just said:

Anyone who would stand before you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year’s health care premiums are going down, I don’t think is telling the truth.”

Okay, to say that health care premiums is going down is not telling the truth.  Which, of course, is a lie.

Now let’s see what Obama claimed of his ObamaCare boondoggle just the other day in Strongsville, Ohio:

How many people are getting insurance throught their jobs right now, raise your hands, alot of those folk , your employer, it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3000 percent so they could give you a raise.”

HotAir has the video of this total bullshit (please pardon my language, but a gross lie merits a gross description).

The facts of the matter are these: 93% of Americans won’t receive any benefit from ObamaCare.  25% of Americans making less than $200,000 a year would see their health care costs RISE.  And for every one family that receives a subsidy to pay for ObamaCare, three families will pay more.

And THAT is if everything goes well for ObamaCare, and all his outlandish assumptions turn out to be true.

Obama is not a man who tells just one lie; he constantly lies. He says:

The most insidious argument they are making is the idea that somehow this would hurt Medicare.  This proposal makes Medicare stronger. It makes the coverage better and makes the finances more secure. And anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed or they are trying to misinform you.”

But it is Obama who is at best misinformed and misleading others because the $500 billion in cuts from Medicare are counted as helping its survival even though the money is siphoned off and spent on other programs.  Obama is trying to spend the same dollar twice.   Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin says, “This simply takes Medicare money out and uses it somewhere else.  That’s weakening a system that’s already in bad trouble.”

Current CBO director Douglass Elmendorf agrees, saying:

“… to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.”

And Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare and Medicaid said the same thing on December 10, 2009 in pointing out that Medicare cuts:

“… cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays and to extend the trust fund …”

With “other Federal outlays” referring to huge subsidies to help millions purchase their now mandatory health care policies.

Obama is being incredibly intellectually dishonest.  Maya Macguineas of the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget puts it this way: “Just like an American family that is struggling to stay afloat, you can’t use the same dollar to pay for a mortgage and pay down their credit card. You can only count a dollar once.  So there has been some double counting here.”

Barack Obama is taking $500 billion – that’s half a TRILLION dollars – from a program that is already in desperate crisis, spending that money somewhere else, and then claiming he’s strengthening Medicare.  That is a bald faced lie of gargantuan proportions.

We also have Obama cynically exploiting health care “victims” – including an 11-year old kid – and then lying about their stories in order to drum up emotion, block out the facts, and discourage rational debate.

Obama isn’t only lying; he’s outrageously lying.  He has mastered Hitler’s Big Lie course of political deceit.  Professor Hitler said of the Big Lie:

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously” (Mein Kampf, James Murphy translation, page 134).

Obama clearly has the impudence to lie so outrageously it literally boggles the mind.  And it is a longstanding pattern with him.  When the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate promised that he would be a transcending bipartisan figure who would heal the polarization, that was a Big Lie.  When Obama attacked Bush’s surge strategy (before he initiated his own surge strategy) and promised that he would bring the troops home and end the wars, that was a Big Lie.  When Obama promised over and over again that he would hold the health care negotiations on C-SPAN so everyone could see the entire process, that was a Big Lie.  When Obama promised that he would close Gitmo in a year when he had nowhere to put the detainees, that was a Big Lie.  Etcetera.

As Hitler was rising to power, Jewish doctor Herta Knotwolf said:

So many worship him as their savior, their redeemer from unbearable poverty.  Many are filled with some have worry, but all are united in the words, ‘Now things will change.’

I’ve wondered how Hitler’s “hope and change” program worked out for that Jewish woman.  My guess is, not so well.  “Change” probably ended up seeing her transition from a comfortable life as a doctor to a short and brutal life in a death camp.

Obama’s constant “the time for talk is over; the time for action is now!” blathering also hearkens back to dark leaders of the past.

I’m not trying to argue that Obama is going to personally initiate another Holocaust of Jews (although he in fact is the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history); what I am saying is that Obama is a world-class liar, and if people believe his outrageous lies about his health care takeover, they will one day truly suffer for their naive stupidity.

Democrat Senator Bayh Puts Kibosh On Two Giant Liberal Lies

February 17, 2010

Senator Evan Bayh apparently finally had a bellyfull of the Democrats steering the ship of state full speed ahead straight into a giant iceberg.

Bayh described a scenario of brain-dead politics and hyper-partisanship.

I remembered what the New York Times describes as the promise at the core of Senator Obama’s presidential campaign:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

And I remembered pointing out that Obama’s promise to transcend ideology and partisanship was his signature lie.

And I remembered that Obama is now recognized to be the most polarizing president in history.

The most liberal Senator in Congress had this message for Republicans who tried to share their objections to his massive stimulus program: “I won.”

And what followed from that point was a far leftwing agenda being shoved down Republicans’ throats without any attempt to win their votes via compromise.  The reasoning was that Democrats had total control of the House to go along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.   Republicans were shut out of crucial negotiations.  And they were shut out as a general rule.  They did not get to have anything to do with writing the bills that they were told they had to vote for in order to be “bipartisan.”  They didn’t even get to READ bills with enormous ramifications before the votes.

The Democrats constantly did their business behind closed doors.

Even their meetings on “transparency” were done behind closed doors.

It wasn’t just Republicans.  The liberal Democrats were so partisan and so secretive that even the moderate blue dog Democrats found themselves shut out of ObamaCare negotiations.

The constant secrecy and continual backroom wheeling and dealing surrounding ObamaCare got so bad that senior Democrat Senator Dick Durbin was forced to make this admission to John McCain’s complaint that Republicans were kept completely in the dark:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is. And I’m in the leadership,” Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Obama would flood the airwaves with message after message about transparency and about reaching out to Republicans with a bipartisan spirit of cooperation.  But what he says has a bad habit of not jiving with what he does.

Recently, another top Democrat Senator, Jay Rockefeller, pointed out regarding Obama’s promises that he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Barack Obama and many Democrats have falsely demagogued the Republicans as “the party of no.” But that demonization is now exposed for the lie it always was:

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

The Republicans had been submitting bills to Obama all along.  Which means that every single time he characterized them as “the party of no” who weren’t contributing their own ideas to the debate, he was knowingly cravenly and despicably lying.

The only thing that is “bipartisan” now is that Democrat and Republican alike have no reason to trust Obama.

Obama promised again and again that he would transcend the political divide.  That was HIS promise, not the Republican minorities’ promise.  It was Obama who broke his word.  And it is Obama who should be held accountable to his broken promise.

Now disgusted former Obama supporter Mortimer Zuckerman put it this way:

“In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.”

All that garbage wasn’t the Republicans’ fault.  It was Obama’s and the Democrat leaderships’ fault.

So that’s one giant liberal lie put to bed.  Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t have been more hyperpartisan or more ideological.

The Republicans were right to oppose their agenda.  And the polls of American voters that have radically swung in their favor prove it.

The second giant liberal lie that Evan Bayh put the kibosh on is the myth that the stimulus has somehow been a giant success in spite of the fact that it was a giant failure even by the Obama administration’s own standard.  Obama’s key economic advisers assured us that the stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching 8%.

Even the leftist Huffington Post had this to say back in June of last year:

“The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.”

Unemployment has soared past that 8% figure – and according to Obama’s own projections joblessness will be well over 8% until at least 2012.

Obama and his minions have repeatedly made spectacular claims about the “success” of the stimulus that fly in the face of reality.  According to Obama’s own Recovery.gov website, by the White House’s own numbers, Obama only claim 595,263 jobs that were at a cost of $272 billion.  That comes out to an astronomical $456,941 per job.

And at that rate, we can’t AFFORD for Obama to “create” any more jobs.

Democrat Senator Evan Bayh, a former governor who presumably knows something about job creation, absolutely destroyed the myth of any kind of stimulus success.

[Youtube link]

Quote:

“[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”

Obama and his supporters are falsely claiming over and over again that the stimulus created 2 million jobs.  And a prominent Democrat is essentially saying, “Show me just ONE.”

The number of lies that have been told about the Obama stimulus have been utterly breathtaking.

And the American people who’ve clearly heard at least one too many lies from Obama agree with Evan Bayh.

According to a New York Times/CBS poll, a whopping 94% of the American people agree with Bayh. Only 6% of Americans believe Obama’s massive porkulus has created jobs a full year after going into effect.

Only SIX PERCENT of Americans believe that Obama’s porkulus has created any jobs at all.  That means more Americans believe that space aliens have anally probed them than believe in the stimulus.  It also means that 94% think Obama and his entire administration and the entire Democrat congressional leadership are completely full of crap.

And 48% of Americans polled don’t think porkulus will EVER create jobs.

All that nothingness for the low, low price tag of only $862 billion.

As we head into the future, we find that the Democrats are still playing games rather than dealing fairly and squarely with legislation.

Democrats are still demagoguing, misrepresenting, and lying.

And until they quit – or until they are voted out – Republicans would be wise to avoid them and refuse to play around with them.


Current Democrat Health Plan Following Script To Socialist Single-Payer System

December 14, 2009

The Democrats have a cherished dream in which the American people have a similar health care system to that of their ideological counterparts in North Korea.

The generally left-leaning Washington Post says that the

last-minute introduction of this idea within the broader context of health reform raises numerous questions — not least of which is whether this proposal is a far more dramatic step toward a single-payer system than lawmakers on either side realize. [...]

The irony of this late-breaking Medicare proposal is that it could be a bigger step toward a single-payer system than the milquetoast public option plans rejected by Senate moderates as too disruptive of the private market.

Far too many Democrats want a socialist single-payer system, and liberals like Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner think the current Senate Democrat proposal is just the ticket to take us there:

New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, an outspoken backer of the public option, hailed the expansion of Medicare as an “unvarnished” triumph for Democrats, like himself, who have been pushing for a single-payer government-run health care system. “Never mind the camel’s nose; we’ve got his head and his neck in the tent.”

Barack Obama is one of the foremost liberals seeking a socialist single-payer system.  Speaking at SEIU’s New Leadership Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007, Obama said:

My commitment is to make sure that we have universal healthcare for all Americans by the end of my first term as President. [...]

I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process.

Most Americans like their employer coverage and would very much like to keep what they have.  But Obama does not want them to be allowed to keep what they have.

In 2003 at an AFL-CIO Civil, Human and Women’s Rights Conference, Obama stated:

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal healthcare plan…That’s what I’d like to see.

And what we’re seeing is that – in spite of the American people’s repeated rejection of this blasphemy to American capitalism and the American way of life (let’s just start with the federal government being empowered to force citizens to purchase something whether we want it or not) – Barack Obama is continuing to impose something he hopes will lead to his beloved socialist system:

But, interestingly, it would seem that this idea of expanding Medicare may not have originated with Senator Reid.  It may, in fact, have been Barack Obama’s plan all along to use an expansion of Medicare to push the country toward a single-payer health care system.

In this regard, Breitbart.tv, in conjunction with its regular contributor “Naked Emperor News,” has posted a revealing video that shows Barack Obama’s plans to expand Medicare to get to a single-payer health care system.  At the 34 second mark in the video from a February 2004 radio broadcast in Urban, IL, Barack Obama states the following:

At the Federal level, what I’m looking at is a very specific proposal that would provide health care coverage for all children who need it all across the United States, would allow 55 to 64 year olds to buy into the Medicare system, and I think that if we can start with children and uh those persons 55 to 64 that are most vulnerable, then we can start filling in those holes and, ultimately, I think uh move in the direction of a universal health care plan.

As recently as April of 2007 from an appearance in Portsmouth, NH (see the 17 second mark of the video), Barack Obama was recorded saying:

Uh, let’s say that we, let, let’s say that I proposed a plan that uh moved to a single-payer system.  Let, let’s say Medicare-plus, essentially everyone can buy into Medicare for example.

As the video points out at the beginning, Obama met with Senate Democrats on December 7, 2009, and then two days later (on December 9, 2009) Senator Reid announced his compromised solution of expanding the Medicare system.

The Breitbart.tv/Naked Emperor News video asks if this has been President Obama’s plan all along.

This bill that Obama has submitted through his lackey Harry Reid is such a dead skunk that it can only be foisted on the American people if it is kept in the dark, behind closed doors, in secretive sessions:

Sen. Durbin says he’s ‘in the dark’ on possible healthcare reform compromise
By Eric Zimmermann – 12/11/09 12:33 PM ET

The 10 Democratic senators who crafted a healthcare compromise are keeping its details a secret, says Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday.

Responding to a complaint by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that Republicans haven’t been told what’s in the new bill, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, responded that he’s in the same position.

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is. And I’m in the leadership,” Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Stop and think.  The Democrats want to cut nearly $500 billion (that’s half a trillion dollars!!!) from Medicare, even as they dramatically expand its enrollment by adding those from 55-64 to the roles.

Hopefully you’re not stupid.  You have to see that this is a train wreck in the waiting.  Liberals are thinking, “We’ll get our socialized system in the door, and then when the whole system collapses we’ll be able to socialize everything.”

This plan will slash the Medicare budget, sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens, jeopardize access to care for millions of other citizens, and will prove so costly that to hospitals and nursing homes that many will stop taking Medicare altogether:

From the Washington Post:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday. The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.”

Can any liberal explain why any of this is a good thing?  Please?

And this fiasco will not even lower costs.  To the contrary, it will increase the overall cost of health care.

Consider this:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition found – reached three times before – in six months of polling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of voters favor the health care plan.

Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.

And yet again and again, Democrats have been determined to foist a dead skunk on us.  This is a naked attempt to simply take over and socialize one-sixth of the U.S. economy, torpedoes be damned, full speed ahead.

Democrats do not seem to care what the American people want.  They keep trying to impose naked socialism on a nation that does not want it.  And what they are doing is going to create suffering and even death for millions of Americans.

We have to vote these Democrats out and put and end to their majority before they destroy us.

Most Transparent Health ‘Reform’ In History So Secretive Even Democrats Are ‘In The Dark’

December 14, 2009

Barack Obama promised to put the health care debate on C-SPAN so that everybody could be informed about and engaged with the process.

That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process,” Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

The special interests and lobbyists, he said, “will resist anything that we try to do. … And the antidote to that is making sure that the American people understand what is at stake.”

Obama promised:

To achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

Not negotiating behind closed doors.  Bringing all parties together.  Broadcasting the negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see.

Those were the words of Barack Hussein Obama, documented liar, fraud, and hypocrite.

In the age of Obama, lobbying and lobbyists has doubled.  Now THERE are some jobs Obama has “created or saved.”  And the leftist labor unions – who want everybody to pay massively more so they can get more – don’t want to pay taxes that they expect everybody else to pay.

On December 6, Obama went to the Capitol to push health care in a closed door session for a meeting with Democrat Senators in which he excluded Republicans and excluded the press:

At the Capitol during a rare Sunday session of the Senate, Obama delivered a closed-door pep talk to the fractious Democratic caucus that lasted about 45 minutes. Deep divisions remain over abortion coverage, but there was hope for compromise on whether the government should directly offer health insurance in competition with private companies.“They’re going to get it done,” Obama said as he left. He avoided specifics in the meeting with senators and took no questions.

How “open” and “transparent” of him.

Here’s the blunt, simple reality:

Washington, Oct 21 - For days now, a small group of Democrats in Congress and members of the Obama Administration have been meeting behind closed doors on Capitol Hill to hammer out the details of their costly government takeover of health care. This is despite President Obama’s repeated pledges on the campaign trail last year that these discussions would be open and televisedOne Capitol Hill newspaper has called these secret talks “a slap at … the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill for whatever reform plan does get adopted.” Now Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) has introduced a resolution demanding that these critical negotiations be conducted in the open “under the watchful eye of the American people.” With the fate of one-sixth of our economy in the balance, anything less than full transparency is unacceptable.

And now we find that Republicans – who have been shut out all along – are not the only ones who have been excluded in this byzantine, twisted, closed-door process:

Sen. Durbin says he’s ‘in the dark’ on possible healthcare reform compromise
By Eric Zimmermann – 12/11/09 12:33 PM ET

The 10 Democratic senators who crafted a healthcare compromise are keeping its details a secret, says Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Friday.

Responding to a complaint by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that Republicans haven’t been told what’s in the new bill, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, responded that he’s in the same position.

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is. And I’m in the leadership,” Durbin said on the Senate floor.

Stop and think about it.  This process has become so byzantine, so closed, and so secretive, that even the #2 Democrat in the Senate is completely in the dark as to what is going on.  Ten Democrats – and a whopping load of special interests – are formulating the takeover of 1/6th of the American economy.

This came out of a discussion between Senators John McCain and Dick Durbin.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend about the situation as it exists right now? Right now, no Member on this side has any idea as to the specifics of the proposal the majority leader, I understand, has sent to OMB for some kind of scoring. Is that the way we want to do business, that a proposal that will be presented to the Senate sometime next week and voted on immediately–that is what we are told–is that the way to do business in a bipartisan fashion? Should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is the Senate majority leader is going to propose to the entire Senate within a couple days? Shouldn’t we even know what it is?

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Arizona, I am in the dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership. The reason is, because the Congressional Budget Office, which scores the managers’ amendment, the so-called compromise, has told us, once you publicly start debating it, we will publicly release it. We want to basically see whether it works, whether it works to continue to reduce the deficit, whether it works to continue to reduce the growth in health care costs.

We had a caucus after this was submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, where Senator Reid and other Senators who were involved in it basically stood and said: We are sorry, we can’t tell you in detail what was involved. But you will learn, everyone will learn, it will be as public information as this bill currently is on the Internet. But the Congressional Budget Office has tied our hands at this point putting it forward. Basically, what I know is what you know, having read press accounts of what may be included.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend from Illinois–and by the way, I would like to do this again. Perhaps when he can get more substance into many of the issues.

Mr. DURBIN. Same time, same place tomorrow?

Mr. McCAIN. I admit these are unusual times. But isn’t that a very unusual process, that here we are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the majority leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don’t get it.

Durbin acknowledges that Republicans have been kept completely in the dark (and fed on horse sh*t) because even he himself – the number two man in the Democrat Senate – has been kept in the dark.  He blames the Congressional Budget Office – because it’s either the CBO, or the Democrats, and he will not blame the Democrats.

Newsflash: the CBO does not have the power to prevent Democrats from releasing all the details of the Democrats’ bill.  Democrats have refused to release the details of the Democrats’ bill.

We are in a situation in which a tiny handful of Democrats are writing up an ideological and partisan takeover of a whopping chunk of the economy.  And if you think these people have any integrity at all, you need to reread this article, because you clearly didn’t understand what is coming out of Washington.

Health Care Debate: As Charges of Nazism Abound, Which Side Is Right?

August 9, 2009

Nancy Pelosi upped the ante in the health care debate when she responded to a media question in the following manner:

Interviewer: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: “I think they’re Astroturf… You be the judge. “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

That being in addition to her reference to town hall protesters as “simply un-American.”

Well, first of all, Nancy Pelosi calls health care opponents “Astroturf,” and the propagandist mainstream media have duly found evidence of one or two emails from conservative groups instructing opponents of health care how to have maximum effect.  Overlooked by both Pelosi and her media lackeys is the fact that liberal organizations are literally PAYING people to “defend Obama’s health care.”

The image she tries to project is a bunch of goose-stepping Nazis bringing their beloved swastikas with them like lucky charms.

Conservatives immediately complained: thousands of conservatives have attended town hall meetings around the country, and most of them hadn’t even SEEN a swastika at a town hall, much less carried one themselves.

But even the uber uber uber leftist Media Matters, trying to document that at least SOMEBODY really was carrying a swastika, end up inadvertently demonstrating a very different picture.

So there are your “swastika-toting conservatives.”  A frightening mob of Nazis, they aren’t.

The thing is, what they are clearly saying is that they DON’T want Nazism or Swastikas.  And they’re afraid that we’re seeing something in this health care agenda that smacks of the things they’re afraid of.

So a very, VERY few conservatives have brought signs that express their connection of ObamaCare to incipient Nazism.  Is that so awful?  First let us compare it to how Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and Democrat protesters have used the word “Nazi.”

Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin compared American soldiers to Nazis:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others—that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Barack Obama compared our entire country to Nazism:

“…just to take a, sort of a realist perspective…there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

And of course images linking George W. Bush to Hitler or the devil are a dime a dozen.  Here’s a picture at a liberal protest that manages to do both at once, giving Bush both devil horns and a Hitler mustache:

There’s a rather substantial compilation of Bush-as-Hitler comparisons here.  But given the vast quantity of Bush derangement syndrome, it isn’t – and frankly can’t possibly be – anywhere near complete.

So on one hand you have to simply laugh (as in the kind of intense and sustained laughter that could literally cause you to die) at the sheer galling in-your-face hypocrisy and demagoguery of Nancy Pelosi and the left.  The self-righteous, “How dare you?  How DARE you?” tone doesn’t suit them at all.

But while the above deflates any liberal claim to outrage, it doesn’t justify throwing around Nazi Swastikas or using the word “fascist” at the Democrat’s health care plan.  Do these protesters have any better justification than that?

I believe they do.  And here’s why.

Reason One: Rush Limbaugh added a little gasoline to the fire that Nancy Pelosi started when he pointed out the visual similarity between the ObamaCare symbol and the Swastika.  His point was that if pointing out Swastika symbols was good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander as well.

Of course, the mainstream media came completely unglued.  Rush Limbaugh played a rather lengthy montage of talking-point media outrage on his August 7 broadcast.

But apart from the obvious surface artistic similarities that people either recognize or refuse to recognize, there is a somewhat deeper and much more profound  issue: Obama is essentially taking the symbol for medicine, and combining it with his own political campaign symbol.  The result is the ostentatious politicizing of health care as ideology. It truly IS ObamaCare as Obama’s own symbol for it reveals!!! We haven’t seen anything like that in this country since the LAST time we embraced significant elements of fascism in our politics over 70 years ago.  And it is dangerous.

And a growing number of people are realizing it.

Reason two: Politically, there are some rather frightening political developments from within the Obama administration.  Former “journalist”-turned Obama hack Linda Douglas reveals both how corrupt journalism has become and how fascistic Obama can truly be in this pitch:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

When was the last time you were asked to turn in people practicing their free speech rights to the White House?  The White House is asking people to turn in emails, web sites, and even people in “casual conversation.”  Can you imagine if the Bush White House had taken this course to collect information on protesters against the Iraq War?  The New York Times would have run a 300-part series detailing it as rabid fascism.  In this case, the blatant paranoia – and yes, the fascism – is being carried out by Barack Obama.

Reason three: But that’s not the only connection Democrat-activists now have with fascism.  Now there’s also the “new Fascisti” in the form of union thugs who are coming in to intimidate and even beat conservatives at town halls.  In fascist Italy, the Fascisti were the Blackshirted men who broke up opposition rallies with fists and whatever else was needed.  In Hitler’s rise to power, it was the SA Brownshirts.  Now it’s the SEIU Blueshirts.  This certainly isn’t the first time Democrats have relied on union thuggery to accomplish their goals.

After decrying town hall health care protesters as an “angry mob,” Democrats are now bringing in goons to physically intimidate health care protesters.

It was Barack Obama who said:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

And this former community organizer who is so outraged that communities have been organizing has brought a gun in the form of union thugs to the “knives” of mostly elderly ObamaCare protesters.

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused elderly health care protesters “of trying to sabotage the democratic process,” by showing up at Democrat politicians town halls and demanding answers and shouting when they don’t get them.  But look at what’s happening:

Over 1,000 St. Louis Tea Party Taxpayers showed up to attend the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting in South St. Louis. They were Locked Out! But… The Carnahah staff was sneaking in SIEU members in the side door marked “handicapped.”

Is shutting out American citizens and barring them from access to their elected leaders not the REAL “sabotage of the democratic process”?  How is stacking the political deck with your own people while deliberately shutting out your political opponents not fascist?  And as we’ll also see, how is bringing in burly union thugs to physically manhandle people for trying to express their political opinions not fascist?

In Tampa, Fla: Kathy Castor’s burly union thugs manhandled a small elderly man (in the green shirt) with stage 4 cancer and shut the doors on protesters’ faces to prevent opposing opinions from being heard.

The above footage is a little confusing.  One of the protesters who was physically manhandled by the four burly thugs shoving them around at the same event tells his story.

Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative, was beaten by four thugs at another event as he offered “Don’t Tread on Me” flags while trying to get into a town hall meeting in Missouri.

Is that the only thing that prompts people to compare ObamaCare to Nazism via their homemade posters of Swastikas with the red line through of “NO!” through them?

Not even close.

Let us explore the real reason that so many people – both Republican and Democrat – are so virulently opposing this health care plan.

Reason four: There’s more than ample evidence that – contrary to Obama’s and the Democrats’ denials – that they very much DO want a government takeover of health care.  And more and more people are realizing that this massive influx of pure socialism is not the American way.

Nearly three out of four (72%) Americans believe ObamaCare will add to the deficit, according to the most recent Quinnipiac University poll.

The current number being thrown around for Obama’s health care is $1.6 trillion over ten years.  But government routinely massively underestimates its costs, as I’ve documented in the past.  The CBO was off by 633% in its estimate of the cost of Medicare; and off by 10,900% in estimating the cost of Medicaid special hospitals.  A reasonable figure – based on an average of past CBO underestimation of government cost to fund government programs – is that ObamaCare will cost about $13 trillion over ten years.

Our debt has exploded under Barack Obama.  As the Wall Street Journal’s Michael Boskin put it:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.

And that explosion is going to have huge consequences down the road.

If we put our health care system under government control, it is absolutely unavoidable that we will have to massively ration our health care resources down the road.  And there’s the rub.

Somebody is going to suffer from neglect down the road, as scarce medical resources are allocated to some rather than others.  And the elderly – who 1) are no longer represented in the work force while 2) consuming the lion’s share of medical resource – are going to start getting the short end of the stick.

The Obama administration may not want to admit it, but they have already embraced the idea of denying medical care to senior citizens, given their president’s choice of czars and top advisers.

Take Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (White House Chief-of-staff Rahm’s brother) – PLEASEDr. Emanuel is the health-policy adviser at Obama’s Office of Management and Budget and is also a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

In January of THIS YEAR, Dr. Emanuel – who is a principal architect of the Democrat’s health care plan – wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

For those of you who don’t know what “attenuated” means, let me save you from heading for your dictionary.  It means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Basically, in Dr. Emanuel’s usage, it means, “Time to make room for the next generation and shove off, Grandma and Grandpa.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s, you start becoming toast.

Take  Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Which very much jives with what Obama told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

Don’t let the coffin lid hit your face on the way out, Grandma and Grandpa.

Glenn Beck brought out these statements on his August 6 TV program, adding that he wouldn’t let these men bring him a can of Coke, much less give them the power to make health care policy and determine who lives and who dies.

Right now the decision as to how to allocate medical resources is divided up between innumerable people and organizations, both government and private.  But if the “public option” wins the day, it will be centralized by men like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein.  And as the government takes over health care, and as debt eats up government funding, men and women like Emanuel and Sunstein are going to be choosing death by denial of medical resources to increasingly more and more people.

THAT’S your big Reason.  Rationed care.  Denial of resources to the elderly.  Death by neglect.  THAT’S why health care protesters are screaming and shouting.  THAT’S why people are carrying signs saying NO to the Swastika symbol of Nazi fascism.  And with all due respect, it is a damn good reason to be frightened and pissed off to no end.

Keep your damned fascist paws off my parents’ health care, Obama.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, liberal judicial activist of liberal judicial activists, had this to say about valueless life on the younger side (as opposed to Emanuel’s and Sunstein’s valueless life on the older side):

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote in 1996:

“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”

Enter Eugenics right out of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and right out of Adolf Hitler, the architect of Nazism.  Enter the reason why so many Planned Parenthood clinics are STILL primarily located in black neighborhoods all over America – i.e., “growth in populations we don’t want to have too many of.”  Enter the reason Planned Parenthood is STILL comfortable with the idea of selectively aborting black babies.

And lest you forget, the infamous 1930s-era Tuskegee experiment – the racist and eugenics-based study that studied the effects of syphilis on deliberately untreated black men – ran straight through FDR’s New Deal, and through the course of his entire presidency.

Democrats are working to build a state in which it is the state which decides whether or not classes of people have the right to life, or the right to health care resources.  They want to centralize decision-making, and make health care decisions for everyone so they can further control the economy (health care is 1/6th of the economy) and further control individual behavior.

The late (and very, very great) Dr. D. James Kennedy once prophetically said:

“Watch out, Grandpa; because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

One need only look at Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s chart depicting the odds of receiving medical care versus age to see that the day Dr. Kennedy warned us about is now coming with a vengeance.

So who’s right in throwing out comparisons of Nazism?  If the choice is between Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the health care plan they’re pushing versus the angry crowds showing up at town hall meetings to oppose the plan, it’s not even close.  First of all, let no one forget that “NAZI” stoof for the “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  It was national socialism, as in the sort of socialism health care protesters are afraid of.  Ronald Brownstein, senior writer at the National Journal, said recently that “The defining gamble of Barack Obama’s presidency is that the public today is willing to accept more government activism…“.   Don’t think for a second that the Nazis did not build a vast government health care system, which they then used to advance their political agenda.  And the German national government medical system under Nazism looked far more like the system that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi want to impose than anything that the people shouting at town halls want to see.

Petraeus, Clinton, Obama, and All Democrats: Will The One With Credibility Please Stand Up?

April 9, 2008

As General David Petraeus returns to the US Senate to report on the war in Iraq, it is worth reminiscing on what occurred last time he appeared.

Yes, we had our front page ad “General Betray Us?” in that appeared in the New York Times with a sweetheart rate that violated the papers’ own standard of ethics.

But we also had that bastion of personal integrity – the junior Senator from New York – question the honesty and credibility of the general.

I cite a 12 Sep 2007 New York Sun story that appeared under the headline, “Clinton Spars With Petraeus on Credibility.” The first two paragraphs of that story by staff reporter Eli Lake read as follows:

“WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief.””

Well, let’s reflect on that a bit. Hindsight being what it is and all.

We now know that Senator Clinton is a documented liar on numerous fronts (her story of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia has been refuted by video of the event; her story of playing a role in the Ireland peace talks has been refuted by a Nobel Prize winning participant in addition to other participants; her story of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was refuted by that stain on the blue dress, etc. etc.).

I saw a biography of General David Petraeus on Fox News after he was named to command the multinational forces in Iraq, and was frankly awed by the man’s history of character and integrity. His entire life is a study in character and honor. He took control over a situation that had been presented as hopeless and turned it around in a manner that can only be described as stunning. By the time he appeared before the Senate last year, he had come through for this nation in a way that merited the gratitude of every American, and in particular every parent who sent a son or daughter to Iraq under his command. And as a reward this true American hero was attacked by demagogues who will never even begin to understand the character and integrity that David Petraeus has demonstrated throughout his life.

Mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on vicious attacks against American heroes:

Jay Rockefeller, the Senator from West Virginia, launched an incredibly hateful statement against Senator John McCain in an interview with the Charleston Gazette. He said McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. According to the paper, Rockefeller said “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

Rockefeller later apologized for his comment, but you can’t just take back a statement like that, can you? It was inexcusable, and frankly unforgivable. Rockefeller not only attacked JohnMcCain; he attacked every American serviceman who ever fired a weapon against an enemy during time of war.

This Senator Jay Rockefeller, by the way, is the same Jay Rockefeller who has positioned himself as a major Barack Obama supporter, and who recently urged that – for the good of the country – Senator Clinton should drop out of the Democratic primary and support Barack Obama. You can thus add him to the list of associates of Barack Obama who have said and/or done terrible things against America (e.g. Obama’s pastor for twenty years’ [Jeremiah Wright] racist charge that America created the AIDS virus to kill black people; his wife Michelle Obama’s statement that “America in 2008 is a mean place” which itself followed a similar statement that she had never been proud of America in her adult life; Barack Obama’s friend (as acknowledged by Obama’s own strategist David Axelrod) and former Weatherman Terrorist Professor William Ayers – who openly acknowledged bombing attacks after 9/11 – and claimed to have no regrets over them).

[As to William Ayers, it is frankly amazing that this man - who has openly acknowledged bombing the New York Police Headquarters as well as the Capital building and other locations and said on 9/11 that his only regret is that he didn't bomb enough - is now an honored member of the liberal education establishment and a significant member of his community in Chicago, Illinois. You begin to see more clearly the absolutely toxic political environment that Barack Obama has emerged from].

Now, that last paragraph will be immediately dismissed by those who argue that you can’thold one’s associations against someone. So it doesn’t matter that Barack Obama sat in a pew for twenty years under the teachings of a documented America-hating racist. But it certainly goes to his judgment and his integrity. Michelle Obama has clearly been influenced by her pastor’s teachings, and Barack Obama has whitewashed several of Reverend Wright’s sermons and teachings – by removing the anti-white rantings but holding on to the substance – for mass consumption. Wright railed against “white greed” in his “Audacity of Hope” message. Obama rephrases it to say, “The greatest problem in America is greed.” Obama leaves it up to you to recognize that he’s talking about “white” greed.

And also mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on telling self-serving lies or padding her resume.

A Snopes.com article details some of Barack’s lies and provides their refutations. While Hillary Clinton’s lie can be seen exposed in vivid, hillarious color, Barack Obama is an even bigger documented liar than she when it comes to rewriting history to fabricate his own story. Barack Obama massively fabricated his association with President Kennedy: his father did NOT come to the United States with Kennedy money. And his mother were NOT inspired to marry and have a child by the Selma march as Barack Obama claimed: the first of the marches did not occur until at least five years after Barack was born!

Furthermore, Obama has lied about numerous aspects of his past in an attempt to bolster his credentials. He claimed on numerous occasions that he was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago: he was no such thing. He was a lecturer only. There is as gigantic a distinction between “professor” and “lecturer” as there is between “sniper fire”and “there had been reports of possible sniper fire in the area.”

Obama has also boasted of having passed legislation that in reality never even left committee. And fellow organizers have said that Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

An 8 April 2008 Time Magazine article by Mark Halperin details the above “misstatements” and many others. Basically, it chops Obama’s credibility down like a tree.

Another clear Obama lie has been his profound mischaricterization of John McCain as saying that McCain “wants the war to last for a hundred years.” Asked whether he would support U.S. troops staying in Iraq for fifty years, McCain said, ““Make it a hundred. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” The non-partisan Factcheck.org says Obama’s claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a “twisted” and “serious distortion of what McCain actually said. So much for the candidate of hope and change, and so much for claiming to run and honest campaign.

Barack Obama’s biggest lie of all may well be the central promise of his entire campaign that – as the candidate of undefined “hope” and “change” – he can bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. In reality, Barack Obama – winner of the prestigious “Most Liberal Senator of 2007 Award” handed out by the National Journal as determine by voting record – has established himself as a radically left of center politician. He is currently having to distance himself from his own views. An Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat, presents extremely liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion – positions that appear completely at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. Yet another lie, I believe. In running for president, Barack Obamama must literally run away from himself.

Thus the Democratic primary becomes a question of “Which liar told bigger lies?” And, “Which group cares more about which lie?”

Meanwhile, General David Petraeus’ character, honesty, and integrity stands out like the giant Gulliver must have stood out among the Lilliputians.

But let’s not be too harsh on Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama. They are Democrats, after all. What do you really expect? They come from the Party of Bill Clinton, who sought to become our Commander in Chief in spite of his letter directly expressing his “loathing the military” (a direct quote completely accurate in context).

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator John Kerry, who said of American soldiers:

“I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal andvery particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator Dick Durbin, who – on the floor of the U.S. Senate – compared American soldiers to Nazis, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility with Soviet Gulags. Durbin’s comment resonated in perfect pitch with actress Jane Fonda’s calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during her visit to North Vietnam in 1972. And I give as my source an al Jazeera article to demonstrate just how harmful to the United States – and how helpful to our vicious enemies – statements such as Durbin’s really are.

The Democratic Party is the party of Representative Jack Murtha, who went on record as the first on-the-record U.S. official regarding the events that took place with U.S. Marines in Haditha. Before any investigation – and certainly before any trial – Murtha said, “Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians.”

In another interview Murtha said, “There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed those innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell. “

The aftermath should demonstrate just how despicable Murtha was in publicly convicting these young Marines without a trial. Charges have been repeatedly dropped. Others have been acquitted. One Marine – clearly believing the zealous prosecution line – agreed to testify against another Marine. Thus far, the Marines have been vindicated. The results of subsequent investigations have clearly exonerated the Marines. Again and again, the details provided by Marines confirmed their story; again and again, the details alleged by the Iraqi witnesses have been demonstrated to be false.

I have heard Murtha apologists claim that Murtha himself was a Marine and therefore his character should be beyond question. Well, so was Lee Harvey Oswald! Should we therefore not question his character?!?! As a further observation, I find a former Marine railroading fellow Marines to be even more contemptible than a non-Marine railroading Marines. It’s like finding out that the man who publicly and maliciously framed you was your own father; there’s just something profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of a man who does this kind of thing.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Representatives Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan, who, back in 29 Sep 2002 appeared on This Week from the foreign (make that enemy) soil Baghdad and blasted U.S. foreign policy. Their clear point was that Americans should believe the documented torturer and murderer Saddam Hussein and distrust Republican President George Bush. During the course of this on-air fiasco, a clearly stunned George Will said of McCermott and Bonior’s vicious remarks, “”Why Saddam Hussein doesn’t pay commercial time for that advertisement for his policy, I do not know.”

Well, it turns out he did.

We now know that – in the opening words of a recent AP article – that “Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday. An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime.” See the full article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/iraq_junket

Even if these Democratic Congressmen didn’t know they were being used by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence, their actions were beneath all contempt. These elected American officials allowed themselves to be used as pawns by the intelligence agency of a ruthless tyrant.

The Democratic Party is the party of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” on 20 April 2007. Again, I offer as my source al Jazeera to show just how harmful such statements can be to us, and how they can and ARE being used to embolden our enemies.

Anyone who is capable of stepping back from political party partisanship for just a moment ought to have difficulty with a leader who so blithely claims defeat for his country in time of war. Winston Churchill famously said, “We will never give up! We will never surrender!” Henry Reid says, “This war is lost.” Thank God Churchill didn’t think that way, or we’d all be speaking German. As it is – if the terrorists and over a billion Muslims have their way – we might well all end up speaking Arabic.

And the Democratic Party is the party of House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn, who acknowledged in an inverview on 30 July 2007 before General Petraeus’ first report that good news inIraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.

As General David Petraeus wraps up his visit to the snake pit of Washington, don’t forget who the Democrats are. They are the Party that is invested in American failure, the Party that roots for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of opportunistic political advantage.

Christopher Hitchens has a piece in Slate.com titled, “Flirting With Disaster: The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It’s definitely worth reading.

I often wonder: had the Democrats continued to support the war that was authorized by a vote of 77-23 in the Senate (with 29 Democrats supporting [Senator Clinton among them] and only 21 opposed) and 296-133 in the House, and presented the world with a united front, how different could things have turned out? Would our enemies have remained emboldened in the face of steadfast American resolve? Would our allies have continued to refuse to help us had we presented a united face determined to prevail against the forces of international terrorism?

Imagine what would have happened in World War II had Republicans done everything they could have done to undermine, question, distort, and misrepresent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt? Imagine what would have happened had Republicans en masse called for a withdrawal from the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Had they characterized American fighting men as war criminals? Had they demanded that Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur come to Senate and defend themselves against charges that they were dishonest and incompetent? Do you think it would have helped or hurt the war effort? [This amounts to an IQ test, Democrats: and you have failed horribly].

For the Democrats to turn against the President in time of war and work to undermine American efforts to attain victory out of political opportunism is both craven and cowardly.

If good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats, then Americans should hope for nothing less than really, really bad news for Democrats this November.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers