He’ll meet with terrorists and dictators without preconditions – but screw the Dalai Lama, one of the most respected religious and political leaders on the face of the earth.

In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama's summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials and other sources familiar with the talks.

For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. Since 1991, he has been here 10 times. Most times the meetings have been "drop-in" visits at the White House. The last time he was here, in 2007, however, George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian award.

So in order to suck up to the Commies in Red China, Barack Obama is going to disrespect this figure who is almost universally revered in order to appease a dictatorial regime. And they are not even subtle about this fundamental change in US policy.

Before a visit to China in February, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said advocacy for human rights could not "interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crisis" -- a statement that won her much goodwill in Beijing. . . .

So please understand – for all his talk about making the US a moral paragon, Barack Obama has adopted a policy of minimizing human rights violations by left-wing regimes, just like he has minimized the terrorism of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

In other words, Barack Obama is shameless in his promotion of values at odds with those of most Americans – and will likely come away with nothing to show for it, other than abandoning the historical anti-Communist stance adopted by eachsuccessive Administrations dating back to the days of Woodrow Wilson.

And given his disregard for for the human rights of the people of Tibet and China, is it any surprise that he is also abandoning the human rights of the people of Iran as a part of his attempt to appease Mahmoud the Mad and the Mullahs?

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 4 kb.

HereÂ’s a complaint that seems to miss the entire history of the press in America.

On "Meet the Press," David Brooks reiterated his critique of talk radio from Friday's Times, calling Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin "loons" and "harmful for America." (Limbaugh, on Friday, told POLITICO that Brooks is just jealous).

Continuing on discussion of partisan media divide, Republican strategist Mike Murphy -- an NBC News analyst who's made some appearances on MSNBC -- said "there is kind of a freakshow business of each side."

"We have one-party cable networks now," Murphy said. "One of each. What that does is dumb down the debate."

"Is Joe Scarborough -- which network is he on?" Rachel Maddow asked.

"He's on your liberal network," Murphy said.

"So how is that a one-party network?"

"I would take your prime-time and Fox prime-time and say it's the same dance toward dumbing the debate," Murphy said.

Frankly, I donÂ’t agree.

And neither would the founding fathers.

Take a look at the state of the press in the 1790s, when our Republic was established under the current Constitution. The press was explicitly partisan, and explicitly allied with one side or the other of the political factions of the day. Still later, the press was allied with the earliest political parties of the day.

We see remnants of that today with newspapers named the Whig, the Democrat, or the Republican in many cities around the country. Those names are indicative of the very partisan roots of the papers in question.

In short, the founders would have no problem with the existence of “biased” “one-party” media outlets today. They would likely suggest that it was unthinkable that it would be any other way – and that the very notion that we have an unbiased media is a conceit that is not borne out by reality.

Posted by: Greg at 10:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that once the GOP reestablishes control at the national level, it may be necessary for there to be legislation passed in Congress and signed by the President that will ensure that our men and women in uniform are permitted to vote.

Virginia is the case in point right now, of attempts to disenfranchise the military. After the rejection of military absentee votes in Fairfax last year, we now have the state of Virginia claiming it has no obligation to send out absentee ballots for military personnel in a timely enough manner for them to actually be able to cast their ballots and return them.

The Virginia State Board of Elections argued in their most recent filing that they have no legal obligation to send out military absentee ballots in a timely manner. Restated, the State of Virginia has argued in a federal court filing that they can legally send out absentee ballots to active duty soldiers the day before an election. Restated again, theDemocratic Chairwoman of the Virginia State Board of Election (appointed by the Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine, in his capacity as Virginia Governor) Jean Cunningham just claimed a legal basis for massively raising the barrier to voting for soldiers at war.

The claim? That there is no LEGAL obligation that the state act to ensure that military voters are able to exercise the rights which they are deployed to defend. And apparently these Democrat officials are not terribly interested in the MORAL obligation to guarantee the franchise of military voters – probably because they know that such voters will likely vote overwhelmingly for Republican candidates.

And interestingly enough, Democrat leaders in Congress are dragging their feet on bipartisan legislation introduced to ensure that military voters are, in fact allowed to vote in state and local elections as well as federal ones. Maybe thatÂ’s because they know that military voters could be the difference in the off-year gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

Because she so often makes posts like this one.

If a conservative doesnÂ’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesnÂ’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesnÂ’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they donÂ’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesnÂ’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless itÂ’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like heÂ’s in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, heÂ’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

H/t Colossus of Rhodey

UPDATE: For some reason this thought on the authoritarianism of the "liberal" seems to tie in well with this commentary on the desire of some liberals for a dictator to rule over us all.

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

I think the fine folks at Saturday Night Live nailed it last night.

Seems to me that Barack Obama is already an EPIC FAIL. And personally, I love the fact that SNL notes that the president has accomplished only two things -- JACK and SQUAT.

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Because if she is right in the things she is saying, she has painted a great big target on herself.

It's obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country that tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy – they are clearly white-identity movements. They're clearly white power movements. What they don't like about the President is that he's black – or half black (applause) – and they, what also is shocking is that people keep pretending that that's not really the case with these people.

I'm not talking about people that do have problems with his policies, that's fine. But these people, who are also being led by the Glenn Becks, the Michelle Bachmans, the Rush Limbows [presumably Limbaugh], whomever, they are no different than any other white identify movement that's part of our history. This has been going on since the founding of this country that white power movements have tried to establish themselves and hold onto power.

Of course, the only thing actually missing from Janeane's little rant is proof of what she says is true. That's why I believe that the crap that comes out of her mouth is nothing but a schtick designed to keep herself in the spotlight as her career fades. After all, if she REALLY believed that conservatives were white supremacists out to seize power, she would know that she has just made herself one of the leading enemies of that white power movement -- a race traitor who has betrayed her race and sided with those that a real white-identity movement considers to be sub-human.

And we all know, based upon the actions of real racial supremacists in the past, exactly what would happen to someone like that.

Yeah, that's right -- she'd be deader than a terrorist in the hands of Jack Bauer. The sort of folks she claims that "tea-baggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it's about policy" really are have a history of violence and murder -- and by making such statements she would have drawn a target on herself. And she knows it.

Not only that, but she knows that such outrageous defamation of patriotic Americans who dare to dissent from this president like she did from the last one won't hurt her career, either. She knows she'll keep getting bookings from Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, and Maher -- not to mention work on television series and movies. And that, my friends, is what I believe Janeane's little comments are all about.

Robert Stacy McCain also does a great job taking apart the argument made by this brain dead thespian.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

As is so often the case, this one goes to lib talker Ed Schultz.

What the Republicans did, I think, rivals Jane Fonda sitting on a gun in North Vietnam.

Excuse me?

Failure to support the USOC's Olympic bid -- at least in part over political differences with the president -- rivals this?

So not wanting Chicago to get the Olympics because of political differences with the president is on the same level posing on an enemy gun during time of war, declaring American troops to be war criminals, and denying the claims of torture made by American POWs who carried the evidence on their own bodies? Was Ed smoking crack during this broadcast?

You know, since the enemy within Leftists like Ed have always considered Jane Fonda a hero for what she did in Vietnam -- and used it as an example of the sort of "dissent" that they call "the highest form of patriotism" and which most decent Americans recognize as treason.

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.

Look and see what the future of America looks like if the Democrats get their way on healthcare.

Gordon Brown was warned last night to raise the retirement age above 65 and introduce NHS charges to tackle the soaring state deficit.

In a devastating intervention, the International Monetary Fund called for radical changes to the pension system and spending cuts that go far beyond the plans outlined by the Prime Minister this week.

The global watchdog said root and branch changes to public sector spending would be necessary to 'help keep a lid on the debt' and restore financial stability.

The system in the UK is broke, it is rationing care that is considered ordinary by American standards, and now citizens will be expected to pay for treatments that were formerly free under their womb-to-the-tomb government controlled healthcare system. That will be the future for Americans if Obama and the Democrats get their way.

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Gotta love this one.

Helen Thomas is 89 years old and requires some assistance to get to and from the daily White House briefing. Yet her backbone has proved stronger than that of the president she covers.

Well, that is true – but then again, it isn’t like Thomas is responsible for actually accomplishing anything, unlike a president.

Just for fun, can you think of any other differences between Thomas and Obama? IÂ’ll start you off with a few.

Unlike Obama, Helen Thomas sleeps in a coffin filled with moist earth and can be only be killed with a stake through the heart.

While Barack ObamaÂ’s followers may mistakenly believe he is Jesus, Helen Thomas dated the real Jesus back when she was an exchange student at Nazareth High School.

Feel free to add your own.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Last time I checked, the First Amendment still read as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So why, in this story about yet another expression of anti-Obama sentiment (what used to be called “dissent” and “the highest form of patriotism” when it was directed against George W. Bush), do we get this question asked?

Let us know what you think. Is the sign offensive, or is it freedom of speech?

Let’s try this answer on for size – it is certainly freedom of speech, but its offensiveness is purely in the eye of the beholder. The mere fact that something is offensive does not strip it of its First Amendment protection. Indeed, it is precisely those sentiments found offensive by the majority – or by a politically powerful minority – that are most surely covered by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. That’s why I find the question asked in the story to be so inane – and the equivalent of asking if a certain type of food is nutritious or delicious without considering that it could be both.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE -- 10/1/2009

Interesting, isn't it, that all of this Democrat uproar -- including death wishes for the perpetrator -- was directed at something that was the work of a juvenile, just like the case I commented on (to much ridicule) three years ago. Will anyone on the Left admit that I was right three years ago -- or admit that they were wrong to get so upset over some kid playing around?

ORIGINAL POST -- 9/28/2009

When I wrote about this incident three years ago, liberals poo-pooed it as not a big deal. Indeed, some were outraged that the Secret Service would even investigate such a thing on a social networking site.

Well, now the Secret Service is investigating an incident that I consider every bit as serious -- and this time the liberals are up in arms and spewing their venom.

The Secret Service is investigating the origins of a poll that appeared on Facebook that asked whether President Obama should be killed.

Posted over the weekend, the poll was removed by Facebook after the Secret Service received a tip and contacted the company, which was not aware of the survey, sources tell ABC News.

"When the Secret Service became aware of the poll we worked with Facebook to have it taken down and are conducting an investigation," said a spokesman for the Secret Service.

The poll asked: "Should Obama be killed?" The answer choices: "No," "Maybe," "Yes" and "Yes if he cuts my health care."

Now liberals are upset over the poll, and want the perp investigated and prosecuted.

So do I.

The difference -- I was for such actions by the Secret Service when the president was George W. Bush and not Barack Obama. They weren't. In short, I am consistent -- they are hypocrites.

Posted by: Greg at 05:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, if the federal government is going to take care of "structural imbalances" in broadcasting and healthcare, shouldn't Congress also take action to address such imbalances in the publishing industry, where liberal political books are markedly less successful than their conservative counterparts?

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Imagine that – her co-author is a conservative Republican who is an evangelical Christian!

Sarah Palin's most consequential choice since leaving the Alaska governor's mansion may be her co-author - a staunch conservative, devoted evangelical Christian, and intensely partisan Republican from far, far outside the Beltway.
Lynn Vincent spent the summer working with Palin on a closely-guarded 400 page memoir, "Going Rogue: An American Life." The book is due out from HarperCollins Nov. 17 - but it shot to the top of the Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists Wednesday as word of its publication spread.

Sarah Palin is trying to communicate who she is and her vision for America. In order to best do that, she needs to work with someone who is sympathetic to her point of view. If she didn’t, she would spend more time fighting with her co-author than writing the book. The choice of Lynn Vincent is therefore a good one – an experienced writer who shares Palin’s vision to communicate Sarah’s ideas. Sounds like a smart choice to me.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Here is, from where I sit, the heart of DionneÂ’s argument on why it is common sense that so-called moderates should support the public option is found right here.

The strangest aspect of the debate over a public option for health coverage is that the centrists who oppose it should love it.

It doesn't involve a government takeover of the health-care system. The idea is that only consumers who want to enroll in a government-run health plan would do so. Anyone who preferred private insurance could get it.

The public option also uses government exactly as advocates of market economics say it should be deployed: not as a controlling entity but as a nudge toward greater competition. Fans of the market rightly oppose monopolies. But in many places, a small number of insurance companies -- sometimes only one -- dominates the market. The public option is a monopoly-buster.

He’s right in noting that the preferred method of folks in the middle – and on the right, too – is for the market over the government. The problem is that he doesn’t recognize the fundamental objection to the government entering the marketplace – namely that it will NEVER compete on an equal basis. After all, not one insurance company has the unlimited financial reserves of the federal government behind it, with the ability to operate at a loss in order to keep rates artificially low. What’s more, the impact of such a government player in the market would be to warp it in favor of the government and against the private sector – ultimately creating a system in which there is only one dominant company in the market – namely the government-backed option. The result will inevitably be the collapse of private insurance companies unable to compete with an entity bound by different rules and a different economic model – in effect meaning that while there will be no takeover today, there will be one tomorrow or the day after.

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like it is happening again.

Dan Fuchs said business was just starting to pick up at his kiosk in the Mall at Johnson City.

Fuchs’ business, the Graphic Edge, printed slogans and pictures on items such as coffee cups, bumper stickers and T-shirts. He said more than half of his business came from the sale of anti-Obama merchandise. Bumper stickers with slogans such as “SOS: Stop Obama’s Socialism,” “Nobama,” and “Chicago got the party, but the country got the hangover” were displayed around the small stand.

Now it appears Fuchs is out of business at the mall, but mall officials say this decision was not based upon political views.

Friday afternoon, Fuchs was handed a lease termination notice by mall officials and signed by Mall General Manager Tembra Aldridge. The letter states that the option to terminate the lease agreement is effective 11:59 p.m. today and that he must vacate the mall premises and remove his property before then.

Fuchs said he was given no reason for this termination and was shocked and upset. Thursday evening, Fuchs said mall officials met with him and told him to take down the anti-Obama items on display by closing time or face immediate eviction.

I’m curious – how much anti-Bush merchandise was banned during the previous eight years? How many retailers have been ordered out of malls for being too pro-Obama? And will we Americans continue to spend our money in malls that show such contempt for the views of so many Americans?

Feel free to contact the management of the Mall at Johnson City to express your disapproval – and the property’s owner, the Glimcher Realty Trust.

And remember -- this isn't the first time this has happened.

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that they are out to prove Joe Wilson right when he said that Obama lied about border-jumping immigration criminals not being covered under ObamaCare.

Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access, The Washington Times reported on Monday.

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

Of course, the next argument is that illegals too poor to afford the insurance should get it for free – expect it. And there will certainly be a bar to using data from ObamaCare for purposes of locating illegals and deporting them. In other words, this will just be welfare for lawbreakers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Not only is Elizabeth Edwards making blog comments using the persona of a black woman, but there are some other fun details as well.

Along with claiming that Edwards and Hunter made a sex tape, the proposal alleges:

* Edwards had had affairs with other women on the campaign trail.

* When Edwards was forced to call off a birthday date with Hunter because he found out that Elizabeth's cancer had returned, an unsympathetic Hunter screamed at him.

* After learning of the affair, Elizabeth made John sleep in their barn though she would wake him up with accusatory rants.

* Hunter relied on a California psychic named Bob to tell her where to live and what to do.

* Edwards had little affection for John Kerry - once comparing him to Richie Rich - but changed his tune when the Democratic presidential nominee tapped him as his running mate.

* Ted Kennedy once told Young about a would-be assassin who managed to get into his Senate office because one of his bodyguards was having a gay liaison with one of his top aides.

Interesting, isnÂ’t it, that the media isnÂ’t giving this situation the same sort of coverage as Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, or other Republicans with fidelity problems. I guess that the D after EdwardsÂ’ name is sufficient to keep the press from being too interested.

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

The first three words of the US Constitution are "We the People". That is important, because it is indicative of the basic truth that all government power in the United States derives from We the People -- that We the People are sovereigns, not subjects.

And so the arrogance of the Democrats on this point is particularly galling.

Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.

Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.

Democrats said it was a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks.

In other words, We the People don't have a right to know what those who are supposed to serve us, who derive their authority from our sovereignty, are trying to do with the limited power that we deign to grant them. Seems to me that they are under the mistaken notion that they, not We, are sovereign.

Seems to me that it is time for We the People to take action against those who would ignore the source of their authority.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

Given that that the implementation of any eventual healthcare scheme proposed by the Democrats is years away, Rep. Eric Cantor did the responsible thing when confronted with a question of how a woman who has cancer RIGHT NOW can get help for her condition.

CHURCHILL: I have a very close relative, a woman in her early forties, who did have a wonderful, high-paying job, owns her own home and is a real contributing member of society. She lost her job. Just a couple of weeks ago, she found out that she has tumors in her belly and that she needs an operation. Her doctors told her that they are growing and that she needs to get this operation quickly. She has no insurance. [...]

CANTOR: First of all I guess I would ask what the situation is in terms of income eligibility and the existing programs that are out there. Because if we look at the uninsured that are out there right now, there is probably 23, 24% of the uninsured that is already eligible for an existing government program [...] Beyond that, I know that there are programs, there are charitable organizations, there are hospitals here who do provide charity care if thereÂ’s an instance of indigency and the individual is not eligible for existing programs that there can be some cooperative effort. No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed.

Not good enough for the libs over at Think Progress, who ignore the fact that he is trying to direct this dying woman to help RIGHT NOW, not at some hypothetical future date when legislation might go into effect four or five years ago. But I guess they would have preferred a promise to vote for single payer health insurance, even if the woman in question were to die in the interim – because, in the words of every Trekkie’s favorite Vulcan, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

I was never a huge fan, and sharply criticized him for his betrayal of his party and his district in 2006.

But Tom DeLay was my congressman, after all -- and I always found him to be a pretty cordial fellow.

Here's wishing you all the best, Tom. Please at least knock out that damned Dallas Cowboy.

Posted by: Greg at 03:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

And that he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about when he tries to con us into his risky healthcare scheme.

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

But he could look it up — in the bill.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”

The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.

The House bill also refers to the penalties for not carrying insurance as a tax. It calls for a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage” and amends the tax code to implement it.

Seems pretty clear to me that hte Obamateur doesn't know what he is talking about -- or doesn't have any regard for the truth when he speaks.

So what do you think?

Is the president a liar, or just in way over his head -- or both?

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess you have to be a dead abortionist to get the President to condemn acts of violence committed against you.

Flagstaff, AZ (LifeNews.com) -- Pro-life advocates are upset by an attack on a pro-life man in Arizona who was holding a pro-life sign that apparently upset two pro-abortion women. The attack came eight days after pro-life advocate James Pouillon was shot repeatedly and killed in Michigan by a man who didn't like him protesting abortion at a high school.

In the new case, 69-year-old Johnny Wallace was attacked by two women as he held two pro-life signs condemning the racist undertones of abortion and Planned Parenthood.

Wallace was alone in front of City Hall on the busiest street in town at the time of the attack. He was known to take up position at the spot most every day to make sure members of the community were reminded of the problems associated with abortion.

His two signs read "Abortion kills more black Americans in four days than the Klan killed in 150 years," and "Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood."

Wallace was approached from behind by two women, both 48, who began by yelling profanities at him. One then attempted to take way and destroy his sign. After Wallace was wrestled to the ground, the other woman joined the attack.

Paramedics were called and Wallace was treated for minor injuries. He suffered an elbow injury that has required additional treatment, according to officials with the pro-life group Operation Rescue.

Both women were cited and released on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and criminal damage.

This is the second major politically motivated attack against pro-life Americans for exercising their civil rights regarding this issue. As yet there has been no condemnation from teh White House as there was over the murder of abortionist George Tiller, despite the toll of one dead and one injured for doing nothing more than engaging in freedom of speech in a public place. When ill Barack Obama -- allegedly the president of ALL Americans -- speak out against these acts of political terrorism against pro-life Americans? When will the Justice Department open civil rihts investigations regarding these two events? Or do the lives and safety of Americans involved with this divisive issue only matter when they support the slaughter of the unborn?

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember when the Democrats and media assured us that the Tea Party protesters and folks turning out at town hall meetings were nothing but organized astroturf rather than genuine grassroots activism? Well, what should we call this?

The plan for a series of grass-roots demonstrations Tuesday to promote President Obama's health care agenda calls for tightly scripted events and an "escalation" of efforts against "enemies" of reform.

Organizers insist there is no comparison to rowdy summer town hall meetings and recent "tea party" protests that have challenged White House policies.

But Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org, organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which describes the demonstrations as part of its "insurance enemies project."

The document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, details specific talking points, tactics, props and strategies to stage the protests. It lists goals that include action that "mobilizes our base by animating existing anger about private insurers."

The HCAN field plan dictates that each protest will include a minimum of 30 participants, target only health care insurers CIGNA, WellPoint and United Health Care and showcase what it calls "victims," or people who have either lost insurance, can't afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

Got that -- they've scripted out the talking points, are providing props and signs, and even determined the minimum number of participants who will be brought in to these staged events. But then they deny that their activities are anything other than a reflection of the feelings of the American people.

Sounds like astroturf to me -- much more so than any of the events of the summer by opponents of ObamaCare.

H/T Founding Bloggers, Marathon Pundit, Prairie Pundit, Let Freedom Ring

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 3 kb.

What does the Obama Regime have to hide?

That is my question when I found this little tidbit in the midst of a profile of Obama's campaign lawyer, Robert Bauer.

Mr. Bauer would not consent to an interview for this article. Mr. Obama recently issued an informal edict advising his staff not to assist with profiles.

So much for the new era of openness in Washington, and the desire to let Americans see inside the workings of our system of government and politics. In light of the dishonesty uncovered by the press among Obama's cronies and appointees -- along with the extremist views of those like Van Jones -- the new policy is to be the least transparent administration in American history, with the Regime adopting a Nixonian tactic of stonewalling the press.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Good article, thank you If you are interesting 2012 year, by the way, welcome to us http://2012earth.net

Posted by: Earth at Thu Oct 8 01:54:49 2009 (8n1lS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Or something like that.

DNC Promises 'Rain Of Hellfire'

No doubt to be followed by the "reign of hellfire" when Obama is exposed as the antiChrist or Satan replaces Biden as veep in 2012.

Or something like that.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Not the people of Massachusetts, who will have no voice in picking that senator.

No, it is Barack Obama who needs that vote and voice.

Gov. Deval Patrick said Friday that President Barack Obama had personally talked to him about changing the Senate succession law in Massachusetts, and White House aides were pushing for him to gain the power to temporarily replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy amid the administration's health care push.

A month after a White House spokesman labeled the issue a state matter, Patrick said he and Obama spoke about changing the law as they both attended Kennedy's funeral in Boston last month. He also said White House aides have been in contact frequently ever since and pushing for the change so they can regain their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

"He and his whole team have been very clear about that," Patrick told reporters after holding a Cabinet meeting near his Berkshire Mountains vacation home

So when the corrupt Democrats of the Massachusetts legislature change the law to allow for an appointment and the corrupt Democrat governor of Massachusetts makes that appointment and the corrupt Democrat leadership of the Senate allows that appointee to be seated, let's call it like it really is. This appointee won't be the Senator from Massachusetts. He (or she) will be the Senator from Obama.

And look who is emerging as the leading contender to be the Senator from Obama. Massachusetts -- and America -- deserve better.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Out in California, we are seeing a couple of women battling for major political offices on the basis of their experience heading up large multi-national corporations. On its face, such private sector executive experience is a good thing – and the coming of moderately conservative female candidates to the GOP is a positive development.

But now Connecticut has its own female corporate CEO seeking the Senate nomination to challenge Senator Chris Dodd, whose own corruption is weighing him down like an anchor dropped into the Marianas Trench. But is this candidate one that we conservatives can embrace?

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. Chief Executive Linda McMahon stepped down from her post, one day after joining the increasingly crowded Republican field looking to run against Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd.

WWE Chairman Vince McMahon will assume the additional duties of CEO, supported by "the seasoned executive management team already in place," the wresting entertainment and media company said.

The announcement came as WWE grapples with the weak economy and competition from sports such as kickboxing. Still, WWE's profit nearly tripled in the latest quarter amid cost cuts as revenue rose 7%.

Ms. McMahon, 60 years old, is the fourth Republican to declare her candidacy, following former Rep. Rob Simmons, state Sen. Sam Caligiuri and former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley. Mr. Dodd will be seeking a sixth term in next year's election.

Let’s be honest – Linda McMahon has great name and face identification from her involvement in the WWE (formerly the WWF). But that is as much a problem as it is a benefit. Look at where her image has come from – a violent pseudo-sport that is rife with illegal drug use (both steroids and narcotics). McMahon herself has joined the parade of characters over the years in some less than tasteful storylines. Add this to her history of donating to Democrats (including Rahm Emanuel), her pro-choice position on abortion, and her generally moderate politics and I wonder if the base can accept her. Indeed, all I can think of is that she is a female Arnold Schwarzenegger.

H/T Doug Powers

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember how loony lefties complained about the "unitary executive theory" allegedly espoused by the Bush Administration? Well, ignorant LibTalker Ed Schultz thinks that such a system is just great now that Barry Hussein is in the White House.

Want proof? It's right here in his own words, where he makes it clear that he believes that the legislative branch is not co-equal to the executive branch, but is instead subordinate to it -- and that the president is the supervisor of members of the House and Senate, just like the manager is the supervisor of the pimply-faced teenager working drive-through at McDonalds.

Ask yourself this question as you try to put this in perspective. Do you think it was professional? And ask yourself, if you acted like that in the workplace, how would that be received by your supervisor and do you think you'd be able to hang onto your job?

Except, of course, for the minor detail that Congressman Joe Wilson does not work for Barry Hussein or anyone else in the Obama Regime. Congressman Joe Wilson works for the people of his congressional district -- who seem to be pretty supportive of his having spoken truth to power when Obama lied to the American people. I'll be honest -- I wish a few more had done the same.

So remember, my fellow Americans (and left-wingers pretending to be loyal Americans) -- when liberals talk about the Constitution, it doesn't mean that they are talking about what the document really says, but rather about what they want it to say (even when that contradicts what it actually says).

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

American citizens arrested on drug charges in national parks are invariably prosecuted in Massachusetts. So why was one prominent non-American given a pass on such charges?

Political commentator, author and writer for The Atlantic magazine Andrew M. Sullivan won’t have to face charges stemming from a recent pot bust at the Cape Cod National Seashore — but a federal judge isn't happy about it.

U. S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings says in his decision that the case is an example of how sometimes "small cases raise issues of fundamental importance in our system of justice."

While marijuana possession may have been decriminalized, Sullivan, who owns a home in Provincetown, made the mistake of being caught by a park ranger with a controlled substance on National Park Service lands, a federal misdemeanor.

The ranger issued Sullivan a citation, which required him either to appear in U.S. District Court or, in essence, pay a $125 fine.

But the U.S. AttorneyÂ’s Office sought to dismiss the case. Both the federal prosecutor and SullivanÂ’s attorney said it would have resulted in an "adverse effect" on an unspecified "immigration status" that Sullivan, a British citizen, is applying for.

The US Attorney for the area is an Obama appointee. Sullivan was an outspoken Obama supporters during the campaign whose immigration status would potentially be in danger if the charges resulted in either a guilty plea or a conviction.

So why was the Obama-supporting, HIV-positive, bare-backing, drug-using, gay undesirable alien given treatment that no other defendant received in the courtroom that day -- treatment that led the judge to go so far as to raise questions of equal protection of the law?

I don't know.

Maybe Sullivan was in a position to confirm this story -- or one like it.

I don't know, but when you consider how the mainstream media protected John Edwards for so long from tabloid reports about infidelity and an illegitimate child -- reports that proved to be true -- it is a question that must be asked. And hopefully answered.

After all, we've already seen Obamunist subversion of justice in favor of Obama supporters by the Obama Regime's so-called "Department of Justice". Why would something like this surprise anyone?

A day late and a dollar short, at least one MSM outlet is taking notice. When will the rest?

Also, Sullivan cops out on the issue. What legal issues? After all, the dismissal means you are in the clear.

MORE AT The Other McCain, Riehl World View, VodkaPundit, Reason's Hit & Run, POWIP, Ace, Jawa Report, Gawker, Instapundit, Ron Radosh, Moonbattery, Blogs for Victory, Gay Patriot

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 5 kb.

You want me to support government run health care for everyone? Fine, I'll do it -- provided it is in the form of the proposal offered by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

(Proposal is at the 4:00 mark)

Sounds rather straightforward to me -- just give every American the exact same insurance and options provided to every member of Congress. No need for a mega-bill like is currently under consideration in the House and Senate -- just a single page of legislation that says that every American gets what their elected representatives get.

And said plan is surely better than what you and your minions are currently proposing -- after all HR 3200 specifically exempts members of Congress and their staffs from having to have the same insurance as other Americans. If the plan that will come into being under HR 3200 isn't good enough for the employees of the people, it certainly is not good enough for the people themselves.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 2 kb.

It is called a contract. It defines the rights and obligations of parties. Unfortunately, this particular contract was not worth the paper it was written on.

The Texas Tomorrow Fund, faced with possible bankruptcy, is drastically cutting its payout on canceled contracts, angering many parents who signed up for the fund between 1996 and 2003.

The now-closed fund, later renamed the Texas Guaranteed Tuition Plan, allowed parents to prepay for tuition at locked-in rates and promised that if a child died or received a full scholarship, parents could cancel the contract and receive a payout based on current tuition and fees at public universities.

Tuition is three times what it was 10 years ago, so the payout would mean a windfall for many families.

But last week, a letter went out saying that in case of canceled contracts, the state would reimburse only the amount parents paid into the fund, minus administrative fees of around $36 per year.

This isn’t a little change – it means that those who were promised a return for their money will instead receive back less than they paid in. It means that the families of students who did well in school and qualified for scholarships get screwed. And it is totally unacceptable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at DelawareLiberal, my favorite liberal blog, there is an interesting post on folks not wanting their tax dollars to go for health care. The author, who goes by DelawareDem, somewhat correctly notes that not wanting one’s tax dollars to pay for something means you disagree with what the taxes are paying for. He then launches into a rant which I find revealing – and which shows his fundamental misunderstanding of what such opposition means.

Alright. Touche. Two can play this game.

I donÂ’t want my taxes paying for social security checks going to guys like him. Why should I my money support his welfare when he cares not for mine?

I donÂ’t want my taxes paying for his medicare.

I donÂ’t want my taxes paying for the upkeep and maintenance of the roads leading to his house. Fuck him. He can fix the potholes himself.

I donÂ’t want my taxes educating his children and grandchildren. If he is so smart, he can pay for private education or teach them himself.

I donÂ’t want my taxes to pay for the firetruck he may need when his house is burning down. Fuck him. HeÂ’s got a water hose, let him do it himself.

For that matter, he better never call the cops or 911. My taxes pay for that and I donÂ’t want to save his miserable ass from whatever trouble he is in. And he better never use the court system, or the Post Office. My taxes pay for those things too. And only people who I agree with can use the services provided for by my hard earned dollars.
That is what this is about.

We don’t exclude political dissenters from government programs. Indeed, that would be highly inappropriate. Could you imagine the outrage if, for example, the Bush Administration had decreed that opponents of the Iraq War were ineligible for Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits? If regulations were put in place that declare that roads near their houses would be denied routine maintenance, their homes denied police and fire protection, and their children denied an education? If it had been made illegal for them to use the postal service, the internet, or the broadcast media? And moreover, that those opponents of the administration policy would be denied access to the courts to challenge these facially unconstitutional actions by the totalitarian regime that put them in place? There would have been an uprising by the Left – supported by the Right – to put an end to both the restrictions and the administration that authored it.

In the case of the various permutations of ObamaCare, there are several principled bases for opposing the proposal.

First, there is the issue of cost – based upon our experience with the nearly bankrupt Medicare system, can we as a nation sustain a program of universal health insurance run by the government? And if we cannot sustain such costs, isn’t it implicit that cuts in funding will mean cuts in the care provided – which will bring with it the sort of problems we see today in Canada and the UK?

Second, there is the issue of form – is there a better way of ensuring better access to medical services than what has been proposed? Is more government – a lot more government, in fact – always the right answer?

Third, there is the issue of limited government – is it truly within the scope of a government supposedly limited by the Constitution to essentially take over one sixth of the economy? What of the issues of personal freedom and privacy that are intimately bound up with the adoption of such a system?

Fourth, there is the issue of permanence – once implemented, such programs become difficult to reform or repeal. In the case of Social Security, for example, it has become the third rail of American politics – untouchable because it would be impossible to close the program down without somehow funding it until current participants die because stripping those recipients of retirement benefits they have paid for their whole working lives would be unjust.

Fifth, there are those who simply disagree with the Obamunist premise that government funded health care is a right that the government is morally obligated to provide its people -- based upon competing philosophical notions of what constitutes a right.

And I could go on providing a host of logical, rational reasons for arguing that the sort of proposals that are being made – especially those with a “public option” that many on the Left are demanding – are simply wrong from a variety of perspectives. But notice that none of them are based upon the sort of selfish, “screw the other guy” mentality that DD ascribes to the bulk of opponents of ObamaCare. And indeed, most opponents of ObamaCare don’t hold to such selfish motivations. He is battling a strawman of his own creation.

In short, opponents of ObamaCare are not particularly selfish – and certainly no more selfish than those who are demanding benefits funded by the earnings of the most wealthy and productive Americans. The opponents hold instead to a vision of America in which government is more limited in scope – one more in keeping with the philosophy of government that dominated this country for the first 15 decades following its independence and which was abandoned, most would argue unwisely, by those who propagated the New Deal and the Great Society welfare state schemes.

Posted by: Greg at 09:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1054 words, total size 7 kb.

One more bit of proof that the only thing it takes to be a liberal is ignorance -- and to be a liberal talk host, you just need to be unashamed about putting that ignorance on display to the world.

Take lib talker Mike Malloy.

MALLOY (1:30): Good evening, truthseekers, Mike Malloy here, thanks for tuning inÂ…you know as well as I know that the death of Senator Ted Kennedy is the death of a man, absolutely, and everything he was to the people in his extended family, but we also understand itÂ’s the death of an era, one of the remaining, if not THE remaining lynchpin of liberalism in this country is gone.

Aand you know what the term lynchpin means. So with the death of Ted Kennedy last night, liberalism in this country has lost its champion; the person who, in the modern era, personified liberalism to a greater degree than anyone in Congress; I think that his death heralds the beginning of a very, very very dark period in this country.

I remember feeling that way in 1963 and in 1968-when his two brothers were murdered by the right wing in this country.

Let's see.

JFK was killed by a communist who had deserted the Marines, defected to Russia, and objected to the president's tough stance vis-a-vis Castro and Cuba.

RFK was killed by a Palestinian terrorist who objected to senator's steadfast support of Israel.

These certainly don't sound like any version of conservatism I'm familiar with.

On the other hand, it does sound like the ignorance of history -- or willful dissemination of falsehood -- that the Left has been known for and which Alinsky encouraged.

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Over half of all Americans oppose the bill.

As August winds down, the good news for President Obama and congressional Democrats is that support for their proposed health care legislation has stopped falling. The bad news is that most voters oppose the plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey show that 43% of voters nationwide favor the plan working its way through Congress while 53% are opposed. Those figures are virtually identical to results from two weeks ago.

As has been true since the debate began, those opposed to the congressional overhaul feel more strongly about the legislation than supporters. Forty-three percent (43%) now Strongly Oppose the legislation while 23% Strongly Favor it. Those figures, too, are similar to results from earlier in August.

Which does, of course, raise the question: if these folks in Washington are our representatives, why are they intent on acting against the wishes of the citizens they represent? If they did that, they would do to this proposal what Ted Kennedy did to Mary Jo.

Posted by: Greg at 07:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the Democrats are trying to exploit Teddy Kennedy's death for political purposes before the corpse has even cooled.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the only senator to have served longer than the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), mourned his friend Wednesday, saying his "heart and soul weeps."

Byrd said he hoped healthcare reform legislation in the Senate would be renamed in memoriam of Kennedy.

Other Democrats followed the lead of the Distinguished Kluxer from West Virginia.

You know, I agree with the sentiment. It would be appropriate to turn the bill into such a tribute.

I encourage Republicans to use the bill to appropriately memorialize Teddy Kennedy — by doing to it what last and least of the Kennedy brothers did to Mary Jo.

I'd started the day attempting to keep Kennedy's death appropriately apolitical -- but if Democrats want to turn it into an occasion to Wellstone, it is not unreasonable to take the gloves off.

Posted by: Greg at 02:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 2 kb.

Even though it is Democrats throwing the bombs.

A federal search warrant obtained by the Post-Dispatch connects a former Democratic campaign strategist to a Clayton bombing last year that seriously injured an attorney.

About two months after the October bombing, federal law enforcement officials searched the downtown loft of Milton H. "Skip" Ohlsen III, seeking "evidence related to the planning, execution, and/or cover-up of the bombing in Clayton, Missouri, on October 16, 2008." Ohlsen in recent weeks has been at the center of a swirling political scandal that is threatening the political careers of at least two Missouri Democratic legislators.

* * *

Ohlsen was arrested on federal fraud and firearms charges on Dec. 18, 2008, in an unrelated case, according to federal court records.

* * *

Ohlsen, 37, is the former Democratic operative involved in the federal investigation into the failed 2004 congressional campaign of Jeff Smith. Both Smith, now a state senator from St. Louis, and Steve Brown, a state representative from Clayton, have been involved in that federal inquiry, according to state government sources.

And by interesting coincidence, both Smith and Brown entered guilty pleas to corruption charges related to that 2004 campaign and resigned from office. It appears that the two men hired Ohlsen to illegally produce and distribute campaign literature in a manner that violated federal law, and then lied about it to federal investigators.

Dirty elections and acts of terrorism -- brought to you by your friends, the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

It is too long, too complicated, and passed too quickly for members of Congress to really know what they are voting on.

"I love these members that get up and say 'Read the bill.' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill."

Unfortunately, Conyers’ solution is to vote for the bill without reading it, and without even giving it a serious examination. It seems to have never crossed his mind that a bill that is too complex to be understood without “two days and two lawyers” to figure it out is probably too complex to be implemented in a coherent manner without delegating way too much discretion to unelected bureaucrats.

And while this statement came in the context of the health care debate, I think it is equally applicable to ANY piece of legislation. If it is too long and complex to be read and understood by members of Congress – or the American people – then it probably should be split up into more manageable pieces for the good of the nation.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

In 2004, Massachusetts Democrats decided that the people of Massachusetts didn’t need two senators if one of their seats fell vacant – a position heartily endorsed by the state’s senior senator, Teddy The Hutt. The reason? The election of John Kerry as president would have allowed a Republican (Mitt Romney) to fill the seat. Now, however, with death breathing down the neck of the last and least of the Kennedy brothers, the Senator from Chivas Regal insists that his vacant seat must be filled immediately for the good of the state and the nation – because, after all, there is a Democrat occupying the Governor’s office in Massachusetts.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality at a critical time in the national health care debate, has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a Senate vote when his seat becomes vacant.

In a personal, sometimes wistful letter sent Tuesday to Governor Deval L. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, Kennedy asks that Patrick be given authority to appoint someone to the seat temporarily before voters choose a new senator in a special election.

If allowing the governor to fill a vacant seat was not that important five years ago, it certainly isnÂ’t that important now. And given that KennedyÂ’s illness has caused him to be MIA and Massachusetts without that second vote in the Senate for most of the period since his diagnosis, I fail to see how filling the seat becomes any sort of imperative once he is DOA. After all, the state will not have any less representation on the Senate floor than it does now.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Since the Obama Regime is compiling an enemies list of American patriots who oppose his health care and other proposals, I've sent the following to his brownshirts.

Please add me to your compiled enemies list. As a patriotic American, I am proud to be added to such a list compiled by a nascent dictator like Barack Obama as he seeks to quash legitimate dissent.

All I've done is exercise my rights under the First Amendment, but if Barry Hussein wants to compile a list of his opponents, I want to be on it -- indeed, I consider it to be a badge of honor to be included on any such compilation by an totalitarian regime. After all, I've found that this site is banned in several foreign countries -- perhaps one day my own president will seek to silence me, too.

Fortunately, my senator has sent the following to the White House in an attempt to stop this totalitarian tactic from being followed by the proto-fascist in the Oval Office.

Dear President Obama,



I write to express my concern about a new White House program to monitor American citizens' speech opposing your health care policies, and to seek your assurances that this program is being carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America's tradition of free speech and public discourse.



Yesterday, in an official White House release entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things," the White House Director of New Media, Macon Phillips, asserted that there was "a lot of disinformation out there," and encouraged citizens to report "fishy" speech opposing your health care policies to the White House.  Phillips specifically targeted private, unpublished, even casual speech, writing that "rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation."  Phillips wrote "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."



I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed "fishy" or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests. 



By requesting that citizens send "fishy" emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House.  You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program.  As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.


I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House.  I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program-and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.



So I urge you to cease this program immediately.  At the very least, I request that you detail to Congress and the public the protocols that your White House is following to purge the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in "fishy" speech.  And I respectfully request an answer to the following:

• How do you intend to use the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in "fishy" speech?


• How do you intend to notify citizens who have been reported for "fishy" speech?


• What action do you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in "fishy" speech?


• Do your own past statements qualify as "disinformation"? For example, is it "disinformation" to note that in 2003 you said:"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan"?

I look forward to your prompt response. 



Sincerely,



JOHN CORNYN



United States Senator

Bravo, Senator Cornyn.

UPDATE: Looks like great minds think alike. It's Operation Go Flag Yourself! Great posts at Brutally Honest, Maggie's Farm, Bookworm Room, The Anchoress, Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 06:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 6 kb.

But oddly, those are the reasons so often given for implementing such a plan -- Barry Hussein has even said so.

But now we get to the truth, after the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has shown how costly and inefficient the current proposals really are.

But now Peter Orszag, Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget has admitted the truth -- any savings are a long way off.

The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade.

In other words, for a decade we will piss away even more money than would have otherwise been spent. And in return for spending more money, here's what we lose.

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
   
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
   
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
   
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
   
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
   

So got that -- higher cost, less freedom. Are Americans really so stupid as to think that is a better deal? Because that is what Obama and his cronies are counting on to get this plan adopted.

Posted by: Greg at 05:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.