Posts Tagged ‘Rangel’

Charlie Rangle’s Suppression Of Hispanic Vote Proves, As Usual, That DEMOCRAT Party Is the REAL Party Of Racism

July 3, 2012

Given the constant sea of assertions and demagogic accusations coming from Democrats that Republicans are “racists” who are “trying to suppress” minorities votes by requiring ANY form of ID whatsoever, this is rather priceless:

Rangel’s primary victory in question as vote count narrows lead
Published July 02, 2012
FoxNews.com

New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel’s primary win last week is being challenged amid allegations of voter suppression and an ongoing ballot count that over the weekend trimmed his margin to roughly 800 votes.
 
A court hearing is scheduled Monday afternoon in New York on the matter.
 
The 82-year-old Rangel was declared the victor Tuesday night in his quest for a 22nd term after he led his closest challenger, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat, by roughly 2,300 votes — or 44-42 percent.
 
However, the New York City Board of Elections said Saturday night the margin had been trimmed to 802 votes as officials continue to count roughly 3,200 additional absentee ballots and affidavits – paper ballots cast by residents whose names did not appear on voter rolls and were not allowed to use the electronic voting machines.
 
“Four days after polls closed, we finally have a preliminary vote count, excluding thousands of paper ballots,” said Espaillat spokesman Ibrahim Khan. “With each new tally, Senator Espaillat’s vote total increases.”
 
The final tally is expected before the end of the week.
 
The Rangel campaign could not be reached for comment Monday.
 
Two years ago, a House panel convicted the 82-year-old lawmaker on multiple ethics violations, from failing to pay taxes on rental income from his Dominican Republic villa to accepting a rent-stabilized apartment from a New York City developer.
 
Rangel’s newly drawn district now stretches from Harlem to the Bronx and includes more Hispanic residents.
 
The hearing scheduled before the state Supreme Court on Monday was filed by the Espaillat campaign. It alleges ballots are not being counted and some voting machines were broken.
 
The campaign said some of the affidavits are from Hispanic voters for Espaillat who were forced to cast them in an effort to suppress their votes.
 
In addition, Hispanic leaders are calling for federal oversight of the vote count. 
 
“We have witnessed disturbing allegations of voter suppression and lack of transparency in the 13th Congressional District election,” said Maria Teresa Montilla, president of the Dominican American National Roundtable. “We are calling on the United States Department of Justice to take immediate action to monitor the Board of Elections’ proceedings.”
 
The group also has established a hotline for voters encountered barriers to the ballot box, including misinformation and lack of interpretation services.
 
Fox News’ Eric Shawn contributed to this report.

We are being told that Hispanic voters were denied the use of the voting machines and were forced to cast their votes on paper affidavits – said votes being easier to destroy without a trace:

One of the Espaillat supporters who joined Mr. Rodriguez at the press conference was Ruben Dario Vargas, who briefly entered the race against Mr. Rangel in April. After less than 24 hours, as a candidate, Mr. Vargas dropped out and began supporting Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Vargas, who said he was “supervising ten polling places” on election day, claimed he saw widespread instances of Dominican voters being forced to use affidavit ballots. Mr. Espaillat would be the first congressman of Dominican descent and his base of support is within the Dominican community.

“It was a common factor when a person with a Spanish accent–a Dominican Spanish accent, went to vote they were saying, ‘You’re not on the list.’ They were not finding them,” Mr. Vargas said. “Then, they were telling them ‘OK, you want to vote? Affidavit.”

Mr. Vargas also claimed some of the affidavit ballots were being tampered with by poll workers.

“I had a tremendous problem with Cynthia Doty, who is a district leader in that area,” Mr. Vargas said. “She was going around with other people cutting the seal on the affidavit ballots and replacing the seal on the affidavit ballots.”

We are being told that a number of polling places in heavily Hispanic districts literally ended up having a zero tally.  Where did those votes go???

We’re being told that Democrats who run the district machine and the Board of Elections aren’t bothering to count districts that are heavily Hispanic.

Ah, Democrat Party, the party of the fugitive slave act and the party of the Ku Klux Klan and the partyof resegregation and the Klanbake and the party of New Deal labor union segregation, please don’t tell me that you’re at it again.

Democrats have falsely demonized Republicans for decades, ignoring the fact that it was REPUBLICANS who voted for the Civil Rights act by far larger percentages than Democrats.

Advertisements

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

July 15, 2011

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Obama Ambassador Cynthia Stroum A Self-Aggrandizing Tyrant (In Other Words The Perfect Liberal)

February 8, 2011

One might argue that every president plays political games.  But Barack Obama ran with such a dogmatic self-righteousness that he would be “The One” to transcend this crap that his total pathetic failure to do so amounts to a major scandal.

Big Obama donor quits envoy job amid criticism
Posted: Feb 04, 2011 1:10 AM PST
Updated: Feb 05, 2011 1:10 AM PST
By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America’s ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum’s management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum’s case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy “has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador’s tenure,” said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. “At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities.”

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department’s inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. “The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business,” she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. “We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors,” he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

“The bulk of the mission’s internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style,” the report said. “She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction.”

“Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador’s actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal,” it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. “It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors.”

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum’s major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama’s campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama’s campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign’s money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them “the importance she attaches to the perquisites of” being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador’s residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador’s requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss “professional school” whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as “management meetings.” Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed “to use excess year-end funds” to buy items unless they are used in that year.

Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she “preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided.” The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher “reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds.” The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.

Liberalism = Abuse of Other People’s Money.

Cynthia Stroum ought to be held up as a quintessential liberal, as she is a total hypocrite who talks about how much she cares for the little people while running roughshod over them.  And her selection for an ambassadorship ought to be held up as a quintessential Obama appointment.  It is the paradigm of liberal hypocrisy.

John Edwards, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and every single Democrat in Bell, California are other recent examples of the complete disgustingness of liberalism.  And let’s not forget the pork emperor Barack Obama AND his empress wife Michelle, either.  These and many other Democrats personify the type of people who claim that private citizens aren’t entitled to keep their own money.

Liberals endlessly lecture Republicans as being “hypocrites” when they preach good moral values and then fail to live up to those good values with immoral personal conduct.  And, of course, that IS hypocrisy, no question about it.

But Democrats don’t just preach garbage that they themseleves don’t bother to live up to; they seize other people’s money and routinely hypocritically betray their own stated values using other people’s money to do it.

Just keep in mind that Republicans can’t steal your morality and spend it on their mistresses the way Democrats routinely do in their hypocrisy.

She shouldn’t resign; Obama should look for MORE self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing tyrants JUST LIKE HER so we can better see what Democrat rule is really like.

A Fact Media Is Hiding: All EIGHT Slimbeball Bell, Calif. Officials Are DEMOCRATS

October 7, 2010

Particularly if you live in California, you have seen repeated coverage of the incredibly despicable corruption and violation of the public trust demonstrated by politicians in Bell, California.

First, the story from Newsbusters:

Eight Dems Arrested in Bell, CA ‘Corruption on Steroids’ – Not a Single Mention of Party Affiliation From Media
By Lachlan Markay (Bio | Archive)
Tue, 09/21/2010 – 15:19 ET

Today, eight city council members were arrested in Bell, California for what Los Angeles County District Attorney labeled “corruption on steroids.” Thus far, every major news outlet that has reported on the story has omitted the fact that all eight individuals arrested are Democrats.

These glaring omissions come only weeks after NewsBusters reported that of the 351 stories on the then-brewing controversy, 350 had omitted party affiliations, and one had mentioned they were Democrats only in apologizing for not doing so sooner.

ABC, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle all reported on the arrests today without mentioning party affiliations.

One commenter at CNN’s online story got it spot on: “I notice there is no mention of the party affiliation of the accused. I can find no mention of it in any story on the internet. This must mean they were all Democrats.”

Give the man a cigar.

Together, the eight city officials “misappropriated” $5.5 million in municipal funds. Robert Rizzo, the chief culprit, was arrested on 53 counts of various brands of corruption.

Before the scandal came to light, Rizzo had been making roughly $1.5 million per year, even though the per capita income in Bell is roughly half the national average.

Pedro Carillo, Bell’s interim city manager, released a statement on the arrests today:

Given the sheer volume of charges levied against former Bell Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo and former Assistant CAO Angela Spaccia by the district attorney, it is clear that Rizzo and Spaccia were at the root of the cancer that has afflicted the City of Bell. Also, it is a sad day for Bell that four current and two former members of the council also have been arrested. I am prepared to double down our efforts to continue to restore order, establish good government reforms, and to ensure that Bell is providing needed services to its residents.

Despite arrests in one of the most massive cases of municipal corruption in recent memory, no media outlet could bring itself to mention the officials’ party affiliations, a fact that has been widely reported since the scandal entered the national spotlight.

There was basically ONE acknowledgment that the corrupt politicians who filched MILLIONS of dollars for themselves in the form of insanely lucrative salaries and pensions – all at the courtesy of taxpayers, of course – were all in fact DEMOCRATS.  That came from The Orange County Register.  And even then, that admission only resulted from the fact that knowledgeable readers complained about the omission:

In the wake of the Bell salary scandal, our readers noticed one part of the story has been left out by virtually all media sources, including our related editorials and columns: the political party affiliations of the five city council members who not only failed to protect city coffers, but participated in what amounts to shameless, if apparently legal, self-dealing.

All five council members are members of the Democratic Party.

Jack Abramoff wasn’t even a Republican official, but by the time the mainstream media got through with the story, there was naught an American who didn’t know that Republicans were evil as a result of their reporting of the 2005-2006 story.  And the fact that a number of prominent Democrats were involved, too, somehow got little mention, of course.

This has been going on for so long, and it’s so sickening.

On October 14, 2008 – two years ago this month – I wrote an article about another galling example of media bias and hypocrisy.  I reminisced about Mark Foley – whom the Democrats and the mainstream media turned into the poster boy of everything that was wrong with the Republican Party just in time to poison the 2006 elections against Republicans.

Now, the media could have made a similar example out of Democrat Tim Mahoney, who replaced Mark Foley in the very same West Palm Beach, Florida district.  In terms of breaking the law and being a slimeball, Mahoney did far worse than anything Foley did – and just in time to be the poster boy for Democrat malfeasance in advance of the 2008 elections.  But the same media that turned Mark Foley into a household name were nowhere to be found.

And, as I predicted, two years later and nobody knows who Tim Mahoney was anymore.

Tim Mahoney spent $121,000 of taxpayer money to keep an aide with whom he was sexually involved with from talking after she threatened to sue him.  He threatened his tax-dollar-funded mistress and said to her, “You work at my pleasure.  Do you understand what that means?”

Mahoney self-righteously claimed he would be better than Mark Foley.  He was actually the guy the Democrats tasked to lead the way in the Democrats’ ethics reform package.  And yet the mainstream media couldn’t seem to find a hitch to hang a story about the guy.

Journalists couldn’t bring themselves to harm Democrats.  Because they are partisan and biased.  And they don’t report the facts, they slant them.

There’s always a ton of stories to show how pathologically dishonest, biased and corrupt the mainstream media is.  Recently, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez was fired by the network after a bizarre rant in which he demonstrated he was profoundly racist and anti-Semitic.

No wonder Obama is so favorable toward CNN; they have the same attitude toward “them Jews” that his reverend and spiritual adviser for 23 years had.  Just saying.

That Rick Sanchez racist tirade reminded me of a story I wrote about how that very same CNN anchor falsely attributed racist statements to Rush Limbaugh in a shocking act of media scapegoating:

CNN joined MSNBC in “quoting” Rush Limbaugh to effect that he is a racist.  And as a result of these “bigoted remarks,” Rush Limbaugh was thrown out of an ownership package to purchase the St. Louis Rams.

CNN anchor Rick Sanchez did the following:

CNN anchor Rick Sanchez read a disputed racist quote attributed to Rush Limbaugh about antebellum slavery on Monday’s Newsroom: “Limbaugh’s perceived racist diatribes are too many to name. Here’s a sample- he once declared that ‘slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back. I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.’”

And that certainly wasn’t all that Rick Sanchez said.  Go to the link for more, and for the embedded video of the “reporting.”

You want to talk about the racist calling the kettle “racist”?

Rush Limbaugh never said any of the things that Rick Sanchez claimed.  It was a terrible, biased, ideological, serial slandering by someone who professed himself to be an “objective journalist.”

I want you to understand.  Clearly, Rick Sanchez didn’t go after Rush Limbaugh because Rush Limbaugh is racist.  It’s RICK who is racist, not RUSH.  No, Rick Sanchez targeted Rush Limbaugh because, like most of his fellow “journalists,” Rick Sanchez is a partisan, biased, ideologue propagandist.

If the media were to report the facts fairly, accurately and honestly, the Republicans would have dominated the political landscape since FDR nearly destroyed America with the same policies that Obama is using to destroy the country today.

Prior to Obama’s being elected president, the “story” was all about how Republicans had exploded the economy.  So it should come as no surprise that 57.4% of Obama voters were unaware of the fact that DEMOCRATS had been in control of Congress for the preceding two years.  It didn’t make any sense how the Republicans could be entirely to blame for the economy collapsing if it was actually DEMOCRATS who controlled both the House of Representatives and the US Senate.  So we had one of those cases in which “if the facts got in the way of the reporting, so much the worse for the facts.”

In 2006, and again in 2008, Democrats – with the help of the mainstream media – made Republican corruption a primary issue.

Now we’ve got more corrupt Democrats than you can shake a stick at (e.g., Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, John Kerry, all the many Obama officials who failed to pay their taxes – particularly the Treasury Secretary and top tax enforcer Timothy Geithner – and basically the entire Democrat establishment).  Not to mention the eight incredibly sleezy Democrat officials from Bell, California, who are robbing poor citizens who earn only half the national average blind.

And those eight Bell, California Democrats are basically using the same “pension enhancement” techniques that their fellow liberal public officials in the public employee unions have relied upon to rack up some $3.35 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

Which is to say that Democrats have been accusing Republicans of corruption, even as they were out literally bankrupting America with their own corruption.

Note To Democrats: Throttle Back Or Go Off Cliff

November 3, 2009

Obama won Virginia by 6 points.  Virginia hadn’t had a Republican governor for 12 years.  Both Virginian Senators are Democrats.

Now there’s change.  McDonnell wins by 18 points, in a 24 point turnaround since Obama’s win last November.  And McDonnell had a 66-30 lead among independent voters.

Obama won New Jersey by 16 points.  Blue state through and through.  Governor Corzine spent $23.6 million of his own money on his campaign; by contrast, Republican challenger Chris Christie had a total of $8.8 million.  President Obama made five trips to New Jersey, and the administration put more effort into this off-year election than any in history.  But in spite of all the advantages, Christie benefited from a 60-30 advantage in independent voters showing up to vote for the Republican.

No matter.

Now there’s change.  Christie wins by 5 points, amounting to a 21 point turnaround from Obama’s win last year.

Four races called, four Republicans elected.  Oops.  Make that five. Republican New York Mayor Bloomberg is about to hold on to win reelection.

We can also add the Maine defeat of gay marriage.  That’s a thirty for thirty smackdown of liberal activists trying to foist gay marriage onto states.  Gay marriage is supported only by Democrat politicians, activist judges, and of course Beelzebub.

Some are calling this a referendum on Barack Obama.  Others aren’t.  I don’t particularly even CARE about that, given the fact that we can’t get Obama out of the White House for three more years.

But there’s little question that this IS a referendum on hard-core liberal agenda items such as health care and cap and trade.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid drink their Kool-aid by the barrel.  But any moderate Democrat who votes for any kind of leftist health care package has to know that they will be dead meat when their next turn to face the voters comes up.

Democrats won the NY-23 seat.  But that is like a drop of spit in a bucket compared with what happened in Virginia and New Jersey.  The Democrat taking NY-23 would have been big if Jon Corzine had held on to New Jersey.  But only a nut wouldn’t see that losing a district is little compared to losing a state.

Democrats and mainstream media “journalists” are portraying the Conservative Party candidate Hoffman losing NY-23 as evidence of a civil war within the Republican Party.  And maybe it is.  But as usual, Democrats are looking at the speck in the Republican Party’s eye, and ignoring the giant log in their own.

MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully  support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute “to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform.” Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. “It’s a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform,” MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.

I’d be worried about what’s going on inside the conservative movement, if it weren’t for what I see going on inside the liberal movement.

I hate to tell you, Democrats.  But if you’re counting on the Republican Party to self-destruct, you’re a fool.

I’m very happy, and maybe that happiness gives me a little more of the sense of graciousness and humility that I would much prefer to have over any attitude of bitterness or vengeance.

There’s room for Democrats.  There’s even room for a Democrat majority.  Just be sane in how you govern.  This is a center right country.  If you can’t govern to the center-right, at least shoot for the center.

Our spending has been insane.  The deficits this administration and this Congress are building is insane.  The nearly 2,000 page health care boondoggle the Democrats are trying to impose on the nation is insane.  And the cap-and-trade legislation that was being prepared this week for another legislative effort is insane.

Stop the madness.  Please.

Republicans and Democrats can and should come together on a host of issues.  Some of them might surprise a lot of people.

John F. Kennedy was a supply-side tax cutter who understood that the economy grew and improved when people were allowed to keep more of their own money.  Rather than constantly “looking forward,” Democrats might look back and learn a few lessons from their greatest president in the last half-century.

We all want jobs, regardless of our party affiliation or lack thereof.  We can and should agree that the only jobs that are truly sustainable must come from the private sector.  Do the math: government sector jobs are funded by taxes.  And taxes are paid by people who earn money from … that’s right, from the private sector.

Republicans were right about the stimulus.  To the extent that the giant $787 billion (actually $3.27 trillion) “porkulus” created jobs or growth, it was the result of inflating the size and scope of government.

Republicans and Democrats alike ought to agree: we can and should do better.  We should either refund that stimulus to our foreign lenders, or at least redirect it to non-partisan private sector job creation.  I would much prefer the former, but doing the latter would at least take away some of the anger I’ve been carrying around for the last nine months.

Health care?  There have been zero Republican solutions considered.  And zero solutions that involved trying to actually lower the cost of health care.  That needs to change.  Dramatically.

We don’t need European-style socialized medicine in this country.  In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  And his view is as true today as it was 222 years ago.

Government has never been America’s savior.  And it shouldn’t try to become our savior now.

As for job-killing cap-and-trade, it is a simple fact that fewer and fewer Americans believe in man-caused global warming.  Polar bears have increased their numbers fivefold while global warming alarmists have predicted their extinction.  It’s time to stop the madness, and focus on creating more jobs rather than creating more carbon offset credits.

Republicans and Democrats alike should both want to see less waste and corruption in our government.  Democrats promised to deliver both, but neither has come anywhere close to happening.  We need to end the waste and fraud that comes from too much government, and not enough common sense.  Not only did Democrats appoint a tax cheat to be the Secretary of the Treasury, but as we speak, the man in charge of writing our tax laws, Charles Rangel, is in all kinds of trouble over a whole host of felonious tax-related activity.  Deal with him.  Deal with all of them, regardless of their party or their position.  Drain the swamp.

Stop marginalizing conservatives and listen to them.  Quit calling tea party rallyers “tea baggers” and realize that their anger isn’t good for you.  Or for anybody.  Don’t try to ram a radical agenda down their throats and then demand that they either support it or be branded as “racist.”

Do you want a war, Democrats?  Do you want an amped-up conservative majority (and conservatives ARE the majority) out to utterly destroy you?  Fine.  I think what happened tonight proves that you’ll lose that war.

Democrats are willing to negotiate with terrorists and the leaders of rogue regimes.  If you’re going to do that, you should at least be consistent and be willing to genuinely negotiate with Republicans and leaders of conservative movements.  If you don’t agree, you have been drinking out of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s Kool-aid.

As a conservative, traditional family, religious Republican, I understand that Democrats think differently about a bunch of things, and that as the party in current control of all three branches of government, this is their chance to have their shot at showing what their philosophy will accomplish.

But don’t be stupid about it.  Because if you are, you are going to end up paying dearly.

Corrupt Financier Bernard Madoff Supported Democrats

October 6, 2009

Take a gander at king of thieves Bernard Madoff’s political contributions.  Then explain to me how the Republican Party is the party of greed.

The top three donations to the Democrats all dated 03/18/09, by the way, are in fact three separate donations (totaling over $75,00).

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date FEC Filing
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $-25,000
primary
03/18/09
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr.
New York, NY 10021
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $-10,000
primary
02/27/09
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
09/12/08
Madoff, Bernard L. Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary
08/20/08
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF EMPLOYED/INVESTOR
MERKLEY, JEFFREY ALAN (D)
Senate – OR
JEFF MERKLEY FOR OREGON
$2,300
primary
04/24/08
Madoff, Bernard L.
New York, NY 10021
SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL (R)
House (NY 19)
SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
$-2,300
primary
12/05/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
$300
primary
07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
$5,000
primary
07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment/Chairman
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG NJ VICTORY COMMITTEE
$2,300
primary
07/20/07
Madoff, Bernard L.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment/Chairm
SAUL, ANDREW MARSHALL (R)
House (NY 19)
SAUL FOR CONGRESS INC
$2,300
primary
07/10/07
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
primary
05/24/07
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
05/04/07
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $5,000
primary
10/17/06
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST. SEC./CHAI
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
09/30/06
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securi
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $5,000
primary
09/22/05
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVEST SEC
DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (D) $25,000
primary
05/09/05
Madoff, Bernard
New York, NY 10021
Madoff Investments/Chairman
MATHESON, JAMES (D)
House (UT 02)
MATHESON FOR CONGRESS
$250
general
10/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
FROST, MARTIN (D)
House (TX 32)
MARTIN FROST CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
$250
general
10/15/04
Madoff, Bernard
New York, NY 10021
Self-employed/Banker
HOOLEY, DARLENE (D)
House (OR 05)
HOOLEY FOR CONGRESS
$250
general
10/15/04
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
general
08/18/04
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
primary
08/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Madoff (Bernard L.) Investment Secu
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $5,000
primary
07/08/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Madoff Investments/Chairman
MARKEY, EDWARD J MR. (D)
House (MA 07)
MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
$2,000
primary
06/17/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Madoff Investments/Chairman
MARKEY, EDWARD J MR. (D)
House (MA 07)
MARKEY COMMITTEE, THE
$2,000
general
06/17/04
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS
LAUTENBERG, FRANK R (D)
Senate – NJ
LAUTENBERG FOR SENATE
$1,000 02/18/04
Madoff, Bernard L
New York, NY 10021
Bernard L Madoff/Chairman
GEPHARDT, RICHARD A (D)
President
GEPHARDT FOR PRESIDENT INC.
$2,000
primary
09/23/03
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS
WYDEN, RONALD LEE (D)
Senate – OR
WYDEN FOR SENATE
$2,000
general
03/25/03
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENTS
WYDEN, RONALD LEE (D)
Senate – OR
WYDEN FOR SENATE
$2,000
primary
03/25/03
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
general
04/08/02
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENTS
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SCHUMER
$1,000
primary
04/08/02
Madoff, Bernard L.
New York, NY 10022
Bernard L. Madoff P.C./Chairman
RANGEL, CHARLES B (D)
House (NY 15)
RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
$1,000
primary
08/30/01
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $2,000
primary
11/03/00
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT SEC
FOSSELLA, VITO (R)
House (NY 13)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT VITO FOSSELLA
$1,000
primary
04/20/00
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INC
OBEY, DAVID R. (D)
House (WI 07)
A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR DAVE OBEY
$1,000
primary
03/10/00
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CHAIRMAN
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D)
Senate – NY
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
$1,000
primary
01/13/00
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $2,000
primary
12/20/99
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION FUND A $2,000
primary
12/20/99
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
MADOFF SECURITIES
CORZINE, JON S (D)
Senate – NJ
CORZINE 2000 INC
$1,000
primary
08/24/99
Madoff, Bernard Mr.
New York, NY 10021
Bernard Madoff Investment Securitie
BRADLEY, BILL (D)
President
BILL BRADLEY FOR PRESIDENT INC
$1,000
primary
04/26/99
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
VICTORY IN NEW YORK
$1,000
primary
10/30/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF PC
RANGEL, CHARLES B (D)
House (NY 15)
RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
$1,000
general
10/23/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SELF-EMPLOYED
D’AMATO, ALFONSE M (R)
Senate – NY
FRIENDS OF SENATOR D’AMATO (1998 COMMITTEE)
$1,000
general
09/21/98
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CROWLEY, JOSEPH (D)
House (NY 07)
CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
$-500
primary
08/26/98
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BOND BROKER
CROWLEY, JOSEPH (D)
House (NY 07)
CROWLEY FOR CONGRESS
$500
primary
08/04/98
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK, NY 10021
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
SCHUMER ’98
$-300
primary
06/29/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
SCHUMER ’98
$1,000
general
05/22/98
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK, NY 10022
BERNARD L MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURIT
SCHUMER, CHARLES E (D)
Senate – NY
SCHUMER ’98
$1,000
primary
05/22/98

When you take a look at who the nation’s biggest scumbags and crooks actually support, it should set to rest the lie that the Republican Party is the party that advanced these people’s greedy self-interests.

Take a look at Norman Hsu, who was a major Democrat fundraiser – and a major Democrat scumbag.  Take a look at Hassan Nemazee.  The Democrats have all sorts of slimeballs who make Jack Abramoff – as bad as he was – look like a chump change operator.

And you maintain that the REPUBLICANS are the party of greed and fraud?  And you want to give DEMOCRATS total power to control everything?  We’re about to see that actions have consequences.

Take a look at your corrupt new Chicago president.  Senator Barack Obama was the largest single recipient of corrupt and collapsed Fannie Mae campaign contributions over the last 20 years – even though he had only been in the Senate for four of those 20 years.  There is no question that Fannie Mae was at the epicenter of the subprime mortgage disaster (see here for a concise summary of the AEI article) that created the financial meltdown in 2008.  Even the liberal Newsweek acknowledges that “Fannie Mae defanged laws that could have prevented the subprime mess.”  And how did they do that?  By supporting lawmakers like Barack Obama who took their side.

Conservatives repeatedly tried – to no avail in the face of united Democrat opposition – to stop the monster (that Democrats supported, and received support from) from growing and then collapsing and taking the economy along with it.

Now Democrats are on their way to rebuilding the monster so that we can have another collapse down the road.

Obama was also right at the head of the line in campaign handouts from corrupt and collapsed Wall Street player Lehman Brothers.  Lehman Bros. was one of the worst players in the subprime game that made them so much money before exploding – and imploding the economy.

Obama had all sorts of “subprime buddies.” Obama was getting huge money from all of the very worst of the worst Wall Street players who brought us down.  You should seriously take a look at all the greedy and Wall Street entities and executives who piled money into Obama’s hands and ask yourself why they funded him.

Democrats are yelling for regulations as the “solution” to the problems caused by the free market.  But before you fall for that load of malarkey, just realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – and fell under the direct oversight of the government.  The reason Democrats want to have so much authority over the economy is so they can benefit from all the cozy and profitable relationships that accrue from the finance world coming to politicians for special treatment favors.

Did Barney Frank’s regulatory oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stop their collapse?  Hardly.  In 2003, when George Bush first tried to create regulations that may well have prevented the 2008 collapse, Barney Frank represented the overwhelming Democrat opposition when he said:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And just before Fannie and Freddie – which controlled half of the nation’s total mortgages – collapsed, Barney Frank (who had direct authority over the GSEs as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) said:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

You can watch Democrats fiddling while Rome burned on Youtube:

The Democrats’ “regulations” amounted to the foxes being put in charge of keeping the chickens safe.

And we’re currently seeing an explosion of frankly quasi-fascist interrelated influence between the White House and giant Wall Street entities under the president who has been bought and sold by the same people who destroyed the economy.

If you want the truth today, you have to go out and seek it.  Because the media today is as dishonest and as much of a propaganda tool for Democrats as TASS and Pravda used to be for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Tax Increases on ‘Rich’ People Planned by Democrats Would Hit Over A Million Small Businesses

July 17, 2009

Let’s file this under the category, “Yet another stupid Democrat idea”: Let’s finance a socialized medicine plan that Americans don’t want by taxing the owners of small business who create the few jobs we’ve got left.

Tax Increase on ‘Rich’ People Planned by House Democrats Would Strike More Than a Million U.S. Small Businesses
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
By Christopher Neefus

(CNSNews.com) – More than a million small business owners and about two-thirds of the profits earned by U.S. small businesses would be hit by the income tax increase on the “rich” that House Democratic leaders want to enact to pay for the health-care reform plan President Obama wants passed this summer, a taxpayer watchdog say s.

Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy for Americans for Tax Reform, told CNSNews.com he calculated that 1.09 million of 21.5 million small business owners would see a one- to three-percent surtax on their profits in order to fund the House of Representatives’ trillion-dollar health care reform bill.

While only about five percent of small business owners would be exposed to the extra charge, Ellis says two in every three dollars of profit made by small businesses would be subject to it.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, announced late Friday that Democrats want to enact  this tax increase.

The plan reportedly would include a one percent increase in the income tax rate paid by individuals earning $280,000 or more and by households earning at least $350,000. Steeper rate increases of up to three percent would be imposed on those earning $500,000 and $1 million or more. The committee hopes these income-tax rate increases will raise about $540 billion for the federal government over a decade.

Small business owners would be subject to the income-tax rate increases because many of them report the profits of their small businesses on individual tax returns. As a result, the roughly five percent who make more than $200,000 a year would be hit with the extra tax.

Ellis said the Obama administration’s claims that only a few small businesses will be affected misses the point. “(T)hat’s what the Obama guys will always tell you. It’s a small, single-digit percentage of small businesses that would be affected by this, and that’s absolutely true. It’s probably somewhere between five and 10 percent … of all small businesses.

“But if you actually look at the small business profits being reported, two-thirds of all small business profits are reported in these households.”

Indeed, IRS figures from 2006, the most recent year reported, show that $479 billion of the $707 billion in small business profits was reported by households in the top two percent of earners, those earning more than $200,000.

Republicans went on the offensive after Rangel’s Friday announcement. A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, “In the middle of a serious recession, with unemployment nearing double digits nationwide, the last thing we need is a tax increase on small businesses, which will cost the American economy even more jobs.”

Blue Dog Democrats in the House also voiced some concern. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told CQ Today, “I have a concern with going outside the health care system” when discussing funding options.

“I feel like the House has moved this issue so far to the left we’ve taken ourselves out of the discussion entirely.”

But Ways and Means Committee member Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) told The Washington Post that “if (the bill) works right,” the high earners who pay extra taxes will also see lowered health insurance premiums.

Ellis, however, is skeptical. “If you’re a very successful company and you’re making more than a million dollars a year,” he said, then at “a three percentage point surtax, you basically have to assume that their healthcare costs will go down by 3 percent of their profits in order to even themselves out.”

“That’s just not reasonable to expect,” he told CNSNews.com. “(T)here’s not one example of where the government is going to go in and take over something and start spending money on something and then it saves money.”

Rea Hederman, assistant director of the Center for Data Analysis at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also said small business owners will not see their money back unless they force their employees to take the proposed public health care option.

“The only way they would see reductions in health care,” he said, “is if small businesses just say we’re not going to offer health care to our employees all together, and I don’t think that’s a direction that people want to go,” Hederman said.

While the surtax for small businesses may top out at three percent, Hederman said, “in percentage terms, the tax burden is jumping somewhere between four and a half to five percent, and this is going to be combined with the expiration of some of President Bush’s tax cuts.”

The health care surtax would come in addition to the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010, which will move the federal top rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

In a statement, Thomas Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said total top rates, including federal taxes, could push past the 50 percent mark in some states.

“Combining top federal and state rates, and factoring in all deductions, the government would be taking over half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers in two-thirds of the states under this latest funding scheme.”

According to Hederman, “Unfortunately, right now, businesses are going to have trouble pricing in (these) cost increases.

“(So) businesses will continue to try to wring out as much efficiency as they can in the labor force, and that means cutting back hours and cutting back jobs,” he said.

A May 2009 survey performed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, small business owners identified high taxes as the second biggest problem facing them, trailing only poor sales.

The tax increase, if enacted, would take effect in 2011.

People see the “small number” of small businesses affected by the tax and think it’s no big deal.  But think about it: there’s the difference between small businesses that are truly small and small business that are big enough to actually hire people.

When I was a kid I had a paper route.  I didn’t work directly for the newspaper; rather, I was listed as “an independent contractor.”

I had a small business.  And like the overwhelming majority of small businesses, I didn’t make a ton of money, and I certainly didn’t hire anybody.

The small businesses that are going to be the most impacted – and the most negatively impacted at that – are the ones that hire people.  And given that these small businesses are going to experience the double whammy of having to pay for Obama’s imposed health care burden even as their profits are taxed to pay for everyone else’s health care, there are going to be a lot of job losses, as surely as 1 + 1 = 2.  Only a fool, or a Democrat, would 1) raise a business’ cost while 2) reducing its profits and NOT expect that business to cut back.

The Democrats’ plan imposes an additional 8% payroll tax on businesses unless they meet the Democrats’ health care requirements.

Another (related) factor that needs to be contemplated emerges from thinking about the concern of the blue dog Democrats regarding going outside the health care system to fund the Obama health care system.  If the darn Democrat health care plan is REALLY something that will save money for the health care system, then why do you have to go outside the system to pay for it?  Why impose so much in additional taxes for something that is supposed to cost LESS? The fact of the matter is that this thing is going to cost TRILLIONS.  It will be like Medicare, with its $61.6 trillion unfunded liabilities, and which is expected to go completely bankrupt by 2015.

And a frightening corollary to that is exactly why people like me keep calling Obama’s health care grab “socialized medicine” to begin with.  Because the plan will necessarily push people into the government plan in FAR greater numbers than Democrats claim will go in.  Small business who employ most American workers, squeezed by the double whammy, will have absolutely no choice but to push their workers into the government plan.

Democrats naively argue that a government plan would not be intended to replace private health care plans, but would only reduce costs by “competition.”  They just don’t have enough functioning brain cells to understand that a government system – which does NOT have to depend upon profitability the way private systems do, and which can draw its funding by forcing even its competition to pay for it through taxation – doesn’t “compete.”  It devours.  The way Republican Rep. Mike Pence put it:

But what I heard yesterday at my town hall meeting was profound skepticism about the introduction of a government option to compete with private health insurance companies within this economy. I think most Americans know that the government competes with the private sector the way an alligator competes with a duck. It consumes it.

That, and of course, the fact that every conspiracy theory about government health care is about to come true: Democrats are openly claiming that they are going to use Obama’s health care plan as a backdoor to socialized medicine.

Bottom line: we’re going to tax our producers into non-producers in order to create a socialized medicine boondoggle that is going to be a disaster.

It is long past time we stopped listening to liberals’ Marxist class warfare messages.  The rich aren’t the bourgeoisie, and the rest of us aren’t the proletariat.  Rather than welcoming the government seizing the rich’s wealth to create one social program after another, we seriously need to start demanding that government finally get the hell out of the way and let all the people have the freedom to invest and spend as we see fit.  For it is liberty and freedom, rather than tyranny and big-government control, that made this country great.  And only returning to the fundamental principles of liberty and freedom are going to be able to get us out of the massive crisis that too much government has forced us into.

Demonization And Other Examples Of Liberal Hypocrisy

April 29, 2009

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberalsConservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine –  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

ted-rall-hate-military-cartoon

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

statue-of-liberty_whip_ny-times

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.