Posts Tagged ‘free’

Question: Why Is ‘War On Terror’ Talk Banned By Obama Even As He Keeps Demagoguing The Bogus ‘War On Women’???

September 13, 2012

Dennis Miller raised that question last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and it’s a damn good one.

Obama banned the term “war on terror”:

Obama administration says goodbye to ‘war on terror’
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase ‘overseas contingency operations’
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 13.40 EDT

The war on terror, George Bush once declared, “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated”. But Barack Obama‘s administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly – via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) … please pass this on to your speechwriters”. Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live “overseas contingency operations”.

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning “overseas contingency operations” for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.

[..]

Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

“Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare,” said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military’s Air War College in Alabama.

“Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. ‘War’ is very much overused here in the United States – on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity.”

Let’s be clear: the primary motivation of abandoning the term “war on terror” was appalling political correctness.  Obama doesn’t want to alienate; he wants to be “inclusive.”

Obama is so inclusive to terrorists, in fact, that he refused to label the murderous rampage by Major Nidal Hassan a “terrorist attack.”  It doesn’t matter if he was heard screaming “Allahu Aqbar!” as he opened fire or that he had business cards that described himself as a “soldier of Allah” or that he had had numerous email chats with a known al Qaeda terrorist recruiter.  It was just an act of “workplace violence,” that’s all folks.  Nothing to see here.

Except when it comes to Republicans, of course.  Obama doesn’t want to insult terrorists, but he is fine with demonizing basically half of the American people.  So whether “war” is “overused” or not, Obama is quite happy to use the term to pour liquid hate on Republicans and then try to set that hate on fire.

“The war on women” is a lie from the devil and from the Democrat Party – unless they’re using it to talk about themselves.  See also here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.  And here.

Interestingly, Obama defines “women” as SINGLE women.  Married women – who are voting for Mitt Romney by a margin of 55-40% – clearly do not count as “women” in Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s universe.  It’s kind of like the black Republicans who have somehow forfeited their “blackness” and therefore merit the hateful label “Uncle Toms” or “Aunt Jemimas.”

Nor are women who actually don’t hate their babies and want to keep them, given that most of the demon-possessed lies from the left revolve around abortion.

Just why is it called PLANNED PARENTHOOD given that its central “service” involves a profound LACK of PLANNING and an abject AVOIDANCE of PARENTHOOD?

In order to count as a “woman,” you’ve got to be single, you’ve got to hate babies, you’ve got to be a needy, whiny, clingy, bitter girl who hates men but loves Obama and his big government as surrogate husband (as long as you don’t actually have a “husband,” mind you).  You’ve got to think birth control costs $3,000.  You’ve got to think that society owes you that $3,000 birth control for free.  Especially if you choose to go to a Catholic university.  Because you’ve got to think literally that EVERYBODY OWES YOU that free $3,000 birth control.  You’ve got to demand “the right to choose” an abortion right up to when your baby is literally being born so you can use your “right to choose” partial birth abortion.  Also for free, of course.  And that You’ve got to think that all Republicans – NONE of whom have ever had mothers, wives or daughters, btw – want to put women in chains right next to black people.  Basically you’ve got to be a complete idiot to count as a “woman” as far as Democrats are concerned.  Otherwise, kindly refrain from considering yourself a “woman.”

Just remember the rule: it’s hateful to use the term “war on terror.”  But it’s just as hateful not to use the term “war on women.”  Because that’s just how evil and idiotic and hypocritical Democrats (of either gender) truly are.

Advertisements

Media’s Bias, Dishonesty Re: Reagan Vs. Obama Unemployment Bodes Ill For America

October 4, 2009

Our founding fathers believed a free and independent press – which would serve as a watchdog protecting the nation from the lies, corruption, mismanagement, and demagoguery of politicians – would be utterly essential for a functioning democracy.

It would be nice if we had one.

The fact is that going back decades, the media have become anything but either “independent” or a “watchdog.”  Rather than guarding and protecting the truth, they have become the “lapdogs” of the left, licking the faces of Democrats and turning viciously on Republicans, without regard to the truth or the facts.

A study comparing the media’s response to IDENTICAL job loss numbers between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama pointedly demonstrate the deceit and hypocrisy of the mainstream media.  In short, Reagan was given negative coverage 91% of the time, whereas Obama received negative coverage 7% of the time.  For some reason, the same media that has repeatedly claimed that Obama “inhereited” the recession could never bring themselves to make a similar claim about Reagan’s inheritance via Jimmy Carter.

There are some useful charts and videos on the Businessandmedia site which hosts this article.  I cite the article here merely to preserve the record.  My discussion of the ramifications of the article will follow.

Networks Flip Flop On Jobs

Identical Unemployment Numbers ‘Good’ News for Obama, But ‘All’ Bad under Reagan.

Full Report

A study from the Business & Media Institute

By Julia A. Seymour

Executive Summary
PDF Version


These are tough times. More than 3 million people have lost their jobs just since February 2009 and consumer confidence fell unexpectedly in September. The unemployment rate has spiked from 8.1 percent to 9.7 percent in the first seven months of Barack Obama’s presidency and is expected to climb even higher.

Despite that grim news, the major news networks have spun their unemployment reports into “good news” and presented Obama positively. Journalists tried hard to present rising job losses in the best possible light.

ABC’s Charles Gibson called the loss of 539,000 jobs in April a “marked improvement” May 8, 2009, because fewer jobs were lost than in March. In June 2009, Gibson was talking again about “hopeful” signs in the job numbers as more Americans were out of work.

But flashback 27 years ago to 1982, the unemployment rate was in roughly the same range as it was in 2009. Yet, network reporters consistently presented the U.S. economy under President Ronald Reagan as the “worst of times” by showing people living out of their trucks under a bridge and collecting free food at a food bank.

CBS reporter Ray Brady told a “tale of two cities” on June 4, 1982. He found the “worst of times” in Waterloo, Iowa, where the unemployment rate was the highest in the nation: 25.4 percent. That was nearly 16 percentage points higher than the national unemployment rate of 9.5 percent. He contrasted Waterloo’s joblessness with 4.6 percent unemployment in Sioux Falls, S.D. where things were “close to” the best of times.

Brady’s report addressed two very different employment situations, but most 1982 reports focused heavily on places where “desperation has turned to hopelessness.” The unemployment rate under Obama and Reagan was nearly identical, yet they received almost exactly opposite treatment from ABC, CBS and NBC reports. Reagan was mentioned negatively in reports 13 times more often than Obama.

While in Obama’s case, reporters found bright spots – like 25 police recruits’ jobs being “saved” by the stimulus package – during Reagan’s term, journalists found tragedy everywhere. They interviewed a battered wife, a family that had run out of food and many unemployed people. One NBC anchor even warned that suicide and murder rates increase in such hard times.

Although there was a difference between the two presidents in how long they had been in office, the spin was still significant. Unemployment numbers rose similarly under both Reagan and Obama, but journalists continued a long-standing trend of spinning the numbers.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed network unemployment stories on the evenings that data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics between March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. There were 66 stories in all – 35 stories in 2009 and 31 stories in 1982.  BMI found that network reports were 13 times more negative in their treatment of Reagan than Obama.  In fact, 91 percent of stories (20 out of 22) mentioning Reagan’s administration portrayed it negatively – while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Obama was mentioned positively 87 percent of the time (13 out of 15). There was not a single positive mention of the Reagan White House.

Blame for ‘Wicked’ Reagan, but Praise for Obama’s ‘Important’ Stimulus

In 1982, network reports showed desperation, sadness and tragedy as a result of rising joblessness. NBC pictured lines of people waiting outside a food bank and interviewed crisis counselors in Seattle on May 7.

“More callers talk of despair and even suicide,” Don Oliver reported that night, before interviewing Jim and Pam Smalls. Oliver called them “victims of unemployment depression and anger,” because Pam had to seek help from a battered woman’s shelter.

Another network showed people living under a highway overpass out of their trucks because they couldn’t find work. But under Obama the networks found a man “doing backflips” when he was asked to return to work at a Minnesota window company and another man who was thrilled to be hired by a hamburger stand in Arizona.

Network reports on unemployment were mirror opposites. They made Reagan look bad in a huge majority of stories and conversely made Obama look good.

Broadcasts journalists tied “rising” unemployment to Reagan in 1982 by mentioning him in 71 percent of stories (22 of 31), but linked Obama to the economy slightly more than half as often in 2009 – only 40 percent of the time (14 of 35).

When the respective presidents were mentioned, political attacks on the Reagan administration over job losses were commonplace in the 1982 network coverage. Union leaders, Democratic politicians and the unemployed were all quoted blasting Reagan for his economic policies.

NBC’s Irving R. Levine found a soon-to-be unemployed textile worker who “blames President Reagan” for his situation on March 5, 1982. That worker, Gene Biffle, told NBC, “When he went in there he said it, he was gonna get jobs and help the economy, but don’t look like he’s doing too much about that.”Following Levine’s segment, anchor Roger Mudd took Reagan to task himself by responding to statements from the administration:

“Spokesmen for the Reagan White House are coming to dread each month’s unemployment numbers because it gets harder and harder for them to explain. Economic Adviser Weidenbaum says today the figures may mean the economy may be bottoming out. Communications Director Gergen says that while unemployment may get worse, the recession seems to be bottoming out. Meanwhile, more and more people are getting bottomed out.”

In August 1982, Sam Donaldson of ABC highlighted the “partisan savagery” of Congressional Democrats, including Rep. Parren Mitchell’s, D-Md., claim that Reagan was pursuing “sadistic fiscal policies.”

The dark and gloomy tone of 1982 reports was a near polar opposite of the tenor of 2009 unemployment stories.

In 2009, the networks praised Obama for merely trying to stop rising unemployment – even when he wasn’t succeeding. And month after month reporters tried to find the “good news” or signs of a turnaround.

All three nightly newscasts mentioned Obama favorably March 6, 2009, even though 651,000 jobs had been lost in February and unemployment had jumped half a percentage point to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent. And all three of those broadcasts emphasized a mere 25 jobs “saved” by the stimulus package.

NBC’s Chuck Todd gave Obama credit that night saying, “For these 25 new police officers here in Columbus, Ohio, the president’s stimulus plan didn’t create these jobs, it saved them. Without the money these folks would be looking for a new line of work.”

CBS Anchor Katie Couric revealed her faith in Obama’s stimulus plan that night as well saying, “I know the government is going to be creating jobs, as we’ve mentioned, through this stimulus package.”

After the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced May 8 that more than a half million jobs were lost in April, another CBS anchor, Maggie Rodriguez, looked for a ray of sunshine saying, “There is new hope the sun may be starting to peek through those economic storm clouds tonight,” before delivering the news that unemployment had jumped .4 percent to 8.9 percent nationally.

Rodriguez’ optimism led into Anthony Mason’s report. Mason quoted Obama and emphasized his call for education as the solution to joblessness and request that states allow people to maintain unemployment benefits while going back to school.

Identical Unemployment Rates, Opposite Treatment

The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and under Obama (twice), but received completely different treatment from the networks – and in one case from the same reporter.

In 1982, Dan Rather reported the rate as “9.4 percent and rising.” Dan Cordtz called it “rising steadily” on ABC, while Ray Brady warned that “job loss is still spreading.” NBC found lines at food banks “four times what they were six months ago.”

In 2009, ABC found “glimmers of improvement” for an identical unemployment rate. CBS’s own economic “grim reaper,” Anthony Mason said the “economy’s showed signs of improving.” NBC also found “positive trends” to discuss – specifically mentioning “2,100 new reasons” to be “hopeful” in Georgia.

But Charles Gibson illustrated how dramatically different the network coverage of Reagan and Obama really were.

Gibson, who was a Capitol Hill correspondent for ABC in 1982, told viewers May 7, 1982, “[T]here really isn’t any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad.” He then quoted two Democratic attacks on Reagan including Rep. Henry S. Reuss, D-Wis., who charged that Reagan’s “policies aren’t just mistaken, they’re wicked.”

But as an ABC anchor in 2009, Gibson was full of hope. He introduced that night’s story saying “sometimes a bad jobs report can look good.”

“345,000 Americans lost their jobs in May, a big number to be sure. Traumatic if you are one of the 345,000. But the number was smaller than economists had predicted, and that’s good news,” Gibson said before admitting that the unemployment rate of 9.4 percent was “pretty bad.” Neither Gibson, nor reporter Betsy Stark mentioned President Obama at all that night.

On Aug. 7, 2009, Gibson suggested “the economy may be finally turning the corner.”

Methodology

The Business & Media Institute analyzed network unemployment stories on the evenings that data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in similar seven-month periods – between March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. There were 66 stories in all – 35 stories in 2009 and 31 stories in 1982.

A story was counted as a mention of Obama or Reagan if it named the respective president, the administration, the “White House,” or any administration spokespeople. Each mention was then graded positive, negative or neutral based on context.

Conclusion

Despite having similar periods of rising unemployment, Presidents Reagan and Obama were treated very differently by the network news media. This fit the theme of the network news when it came to economic reporting.

Jobs and unemployment have been one of the most significant economic measures because they impacted everyone so directly. Network viewers who watched coverage of unemployment during the Reagan years were consistently told things were bad. For identical numbers under Obama, those very same networks claimed the economy was improving. That was clear-cut bias.

And it isn’t new. The Business & Media Institute released a Special Report in 2004 called “One Economy, Two Spins” which showed the way similar economic conditions (unemployment, inflation and GDP growth) were presented negatively during the re-election campaigns of George W. Bush’s Republican administration, but positively under Bill Clinton’s Democratic re-election bid.

BMI found that jobs stories in particular were positive more than six times as often under Clinton than Bush. The networks continued to distort the good economy under Bush in 2005 and 2006 giving negative stories more air time and using ordinary people to underscore those downbeat reports.

The Media Research Center also reported in 2004 that the news media sought to discredit Reaganomics with their news coverage. Virginia Commonwealth University professor Ted J. Smith III found that out of 14,000 network news stories between 1982 and 1987 the amount of network TV coverage shrunk and became more negative as the economy improved. When one economic indicator got better, the networks covered it less and focused on something unhealthy about the economy.

Recommendations

State the Facts: Unemployment data, like all economic data, should be presented as is without reporter opinions being inserted into the broadcast. Forecasting job losses or gains should be left only to the experts.

Be Consistent: If 9.4 percent unemployment is bad, then it should be treated so regardless of who is president. If the number discredits a Republican administration, it should also discredit a Democrat.

Use History as a Guide: It is up to the networks to ensure that they cover stories consistently over time. A reporter working on a story about unemployment being the worst in 26 years should consult the coverage from that time for guidance.

Don’t Spin the Economy: Reporters should be embarrassed when they highlight 25 jobs gained after telling viewers 651,000 jobs were lost. If a story is negative, then tell it that way. Don’t allow White House spin from either party to distort the final result.

Because of the media’s dishonest and deceptive propaganda, we end up believing half truths that fundamentally amount to whole lies.

As I set up why this propaganda is so fundamentally dangerous, let me quote myself:

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession.  There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save.  And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future.  Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan DID have a solution, and the result was the Reagan Revolution.

Unemployment had risen to 11%.  More businesses failed than at any time since World War II.  The picture of the economy was grim, indeed.

And then the Reagan policies – ridiculed by the very same liberal economic theorists whose policies created the inflation to begin with – began to work.  And the result – from such terrible beginnings – was the 2nd largest peacetime expansion in American history.  And now – to prove that there really is nothing new under the sun, liberal economic theorists are STILL ridiculing Reagan’s successful policy over twenty years after its success changed America.

Carter was at a self-confessed loss to solve the problem of inflation that his own administration had created.  It was Ronald Reagan who had the answer to the problem that Democrats had created and which Democrats could not solve.

I refer to the “Network Flip Flops On Jobs” article to evidence the fact that the liberal establishment thoroughly attacked Reagan for his policies.  But history clearly reveals that it wasn’t Reagan who was wrong; it was the liberals who attacked and sought to undermine him.

These same entrenched liberal establishment (and in the case of Charles Gibson, as one example, the very same people) have never learned.  They continue to believe that up is down and that down is up.  As they regard the world through a fundamentally flawed worldview, they simply cannot understand the world as it really is.  Rather, they project a liberal abstract template over the world (such as Marxist or socialist theories) which they continue to believe in — no matter how many times it is refuted by history.

We have a media that keeps seeing “unexpected rises in unemployment” and increases that – while clearly bad in and of themselves – are billed as either “better than” or less than expected” and therefore as good news.

An example of such bias is found in a New York Times article on the result of the Bush tax cuts that liberals have tried to kill ever since.  The article bagan:

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

They would NOT see that lower taxes stimulated more investment and productivity.  It simply HAD to be something else, something that their liberal filters could account for.

Under Bush, good news kept being “unexpected.”  Under Obama, it’s always bad news that’s “unexpected.”

As one poster put it:

Funny how when unemployment fell under Bush, it was always billed as a “Surprise Drop in Unemployment Numbers” or “New Job Growth Greater Than Experts Anticipated.” But when Obama is President it is always the Job losses and rising unemployment that “surprise” the experts.

In this critical time in our nation’s history – when we are more vulnerable to depression than we have been since the Great Depression itself – it is not merely the media’s bias and unfairness that is at issue anymore, though.  It is the fact that their unbalanced and prejudiced optimism is leading us toward disaster as they continue to support bad policies.

We are now the Titanic about to run full speed into the iceberg that will sink her.  There are icebergs aplenty: icebergs of shockingly high unemployment; icebergs of huge mortgage defaults which will only continue to rise; icebergs of massive and unsustainable debt; icebergs of a devalued currency; icebergs of soon-to-spiral inflation; icebergs of an-out-of-control government that WILL NOT recognize its folly until well after the soon-coming crash that will make the last one look like good times.

Stop and think about it: we’re told that we had a rise in unemployment that was worse than expected.  The median expert forecast had been 175,000 jobs lost; the actual number was 263,000.  Try way, way worse than expected.  The forecasters were a whopping 50% off.  But don’t worry; the mainstream media is still quite cheerful and optimistic.

The same media that unfairly and unrealistically demonized Reagan’s highly successful strategy is now unfairly and unrealistically praising Obama’s badly failing strategy.

The actual unemployment rate is 17%.  And yet the mainstream media presentation (with only an occasional moment to reflect on sobering news) has just been unrelentingly optimistic.  While conservatives and Republicans should rightly be outraged over the media’s bias and propaganda during Republican eras, the greater risk is the destruction that is increasingly likely to occur because the media refuses to critically examine the worsening negative effects of Obama’s policies.

The same people who continued to believe that Reagan was so, so wrong in spite of all evidence to the contrary now just as steadfastly believe that Obama is so, so right.  And that should terrify you.

This isn’t just “emperor’s new clothes”; this is wearing a View Master featuring a scenic roadway while driving the country right off a cliff.

Ready To Go To Jail For Not Buying ‘Free’ Government Health Care?

September 27, 2009

Liberals have oft exalted communist Cuba’s “free” health care system.  Isn’t it wonderful?  Why can’t we do that?

Of course, for one thing, the “free” system in Cuba isn’t nearly so wonderful as “Sicko” Michael Moore made it in his propaganda film.  Frankly, I wouldn’t take my dog to a Cuban hospital.

It isn’t just Michael Moore; CNN depicted the Cuban system as a model for America, too.

Most Americans would only go to Cuba at the point of a gun.  But Obama is trying to bring Cuba to us.

The sad reality – as the “public option” makes its way back into the Democrats’ plans – is that the system that they are so determined to impose is neither “free” nor anything other than a giant step down from the system we have.

When you factor out deaths by accidents and homicide – which say nothing about the quality of a health care system – the U.S. system is the best in the world measured by life expectancy.  One teenage gang-banger blown away in a drive-by shooting does serious damage to mortality-rate tables.  It would be nice if the mainstream media actually quit serving as Michael Moore-like propagandists and started telling their viewers and readers that fact.

You’ll be getting a whole lot less.  But don’t think you won’t be paying a whole lot more for the privilege of getting a whole lot less.

And you may even be going to jail for the “privilege” of ObamaCare.

The Provocateur explains how the mushrooming lies surrounding the Democrats’ health care plans will actually end up in jail time for many Americans:

Anyone that’s still not convinced that the Baucus bill is rotten should be convinced after they read this latest discovery.

Under the health care bill being considered in the Senate Finance Committee, Americans who fail to pay a penalty for not buying insurance could be charged up to $25,000 by the Internal Revenue Service or face up to a year in jail, according to congressional analysts.

To understand how this can happen you need to follow the wonky nature of the bill and our tax code. It’s important because the so called logic reveals just how perverted not only the Baucus bill is but the Democrats’ philosophy on health care.

Under the Baucus bill, health insurance is no longer optional. It’s not even a right but rather a mandate. In other words, if you’re living, you have to heave health insurance. If you don’t have health insurance, the government penalizes you. The penalty has been changed once and currently that’s as much as $1900. This penalty will be assessed by the IRS.

This is no small point because the president argued that this penalty is NOT a tax. That’s important because the President ad nauseum promised not to raise taxes on anyone that earns less than $200,000 yearly. Of course, if this penalty were considered a tax, then this would break his promise. Of course, if the IRS is the one imposing the fee/penalty, it’s hard to see this penalty as anything but a tax.

Now, let’s follow the logic. Health insurance is now a mandate. If you don’t pay it, you pay a penalty. If you don’t pay the penalty, you are now evading your taxes. Tax evasion is a crime, just ask Al Capone. So, all those that refuse or can’t pay for their health insurance and refuse or can’t pay the fine for refusing are now considered the same kind of criminal as Al Capone once was. Such is the logic of President Obama and the Democrats.

Let me return to Cuba–and all the other communist totalitarian dictatorships along with it.  Do you seriously believe that the millions of human beings who have been oppressed and dehumanized under these systems knew what they were going to receive?  Do you believe that the supporters of Marxism told the truth, and explained to the people what the system was going to yield?

They were fed lies, and when they believed those lies, they fell prey to an oppressive yoke that they could not throw off.

And lies abound about this takeover of 1/6th of the American economy:

Last Sunday, Barack Obama proved that he is a liar by refusing to call what is clearly a tax a tax.  And Obama’s own hometown newspaper proves the obvious.

Last Tuesday, the Democrat-approved Congressional Budget Office laid out Obama’s lie that Medicare would not be cut:

Congress’ chief budget officer on Tuesday contradicted President Barack Obama’s oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn’t see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

Last Thursday, Republicans exposed the Democrats in their lie that Americans could keep their health care if they were satisfied with it.

And the real catastrophic fruits of those lies – such as actual jail time under IRS tax evasion statutes unless you pay something that we’re assured all the while isn’t a tax at all.

Obama Calls For Mandatory Volunteer Labor For Tickets To Speech

August 14, 2008

This is a result in the kind of mind-numbing robot-logic you could have seen during Mao’s Cultural Revolution:

Fox News reported the story:

Ticket Twist

Some Barack Obama supporters have been told they must complete six hours of volunteer work by Friday if they want a seat at Denver’s Invesco Field for the senator’s Democratic nomination acceptance speech. The Rocky Mountain News reports a campaign phone message says volunteering makes one eligible for a ticket, but does not guarantee one.

Well, that phone message is not going over too well.

One applicant says: “It’s not fair. It’s elitist. And they need to practice what they are preaching.” And another calls the conditions “blackmail,” adding he was told to volunteer for 12 hours to have a shot at two tickets for the August 28 event.

The campaign originally said the tickets were free and that it hoped to fill half the stadium with Coloradans. An Obama spokesman says only those who indicated on their application they would volunteer have been asked to do so. But no one has explained the phone messages indicating a service requirement for a ticket.

The story is also available on the Denver News.

Must complete six hours of volunteer work”? That’s a change in logic you can believe in.

Hot Air ran a piece by Ed Morrissey, who said by way of comment:

This raises some questions about the event. If the campaign requires people to work for several hours to acquire them, doesn’t that make this an in-kind contribution rather than volunteer work? If people who have already contributed to the limit for Obama perform work as compensation towards these tickets, then they could break campaign law by doing so.

Even without the campaign-finance issues, this looks very much like a bait-and-switch by Obama. The entire point of the Invesco address was to welcome everyone for free, perhaps because they wanted to ensure that the place was filled to capacity. Now, with everyone excited about attending this free event, Obama suddenly tells them that they can’t get a seat unless they work for him first.

Like most of Obama’s plans, nothing is free. We’ll pay one way or the other for every supposed giveaway in his policies. And in the end, he wants everyone working for him, while tossing hosannas at his feet and giving him the best optics he can possibly get.

One last thing: Obama didn’t require Germans in Berlin to work for him in order to cheer him at the Tiergarten. Why does Obama treat Germans better than Americans?

I loved that last question!

Next there will be the mandatory volunteer self-criticism sessions, in which the proletariat are called upon to stand and tell their workers’ groups all the ways that they have failed their beloved party and their beloved great leader Obama.

Note to Democrats re: buyers’ remorse: You bought him, you own him (well, maybe he owns you).