For Once, Congress Screws Itself

If we knew this in advance, we could have said something nice about Obama’s health scam. But boobery on such an epic scale is far beyond mortal ken. It’s like a dog chasing it’s own tail, catching up with it’s tail, and then biting the tail off.

Now we knew we were absolutely correct when we wrote that Eric Massa’s behavior patterns were well known back in the days before he was elected. We also know that it was only when Eric Massa threatened to vote “No” on Obama’s health scam that he was “outed” by Pelousy/Obama Dimocrats, in the full sense of that word. And we know Massa continued his behavior almost immediately upon becoming Congressman Massa:

“Just three months after Eric Massa was elected to Congress, his young male employees on Capitol Hill began complaining to supervisors that the lawmaker was making aggressive, sexual overtures toward them, according to new interviews and internal documents.[snip]

In one instance, a staffer said he alerted Joe Racalto, Massa’s chief of staff, in March 2009 that Massa tried to fondle a young colleague in a hotel room during the 2008 campaign. Racalto told staffers he believed their complaints, because he had heard similar stories, according to staffers. Two sources said that Racalto told staffers he himself had been a victim of Massa’s advances.”

Dimocrats did nothing to assist the victims because Massa was on “our” side. Dimocrats kept Massa on board until Massa wasn’t on board and then it was onto the gangplank for a long walk on a short plank. After all the health scam had to be passed. And it is and has always been a scam – by Barack Obama – it’s the Obama history.

It was such an epic scam that even the current scammers and Obama enablers did not know the scam would bite them in the tail:

“It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.”

Poor Obama enablers. But what about the American people? If the scammers got scammed, what about the dupes?:

“The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

That last sentence is the point. The ultimate dupes are the American people. Congress did not know the junk they approved or at least pretended not to know because they had to protect their own. The health scam came from one of “our own” so they voted to “Save Obama” and they not only screwed themselves politically, they screwed Americans and even themselves:

“The law promises that people can keep coverage they like, largely unchanged. For members of Congress and their aides, the federal employees health program offers much to like. But, the report says, the men and women who wrote the law may find that the guarantee of stability does not apply to them.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.”

Congress will take care of its own. It’s regular Americans who will be screwed. Don’t worry about Congress, they will scam some more to help themselves and maybe even their staffers:

“These seemingly technical questions will affect 535 members of Congress and thousands of Congressional employees. But the issue also has immense symbolic and political importance. Lawmakers of both parties have repeatedly said their goal is to provide all Americans with access to health insurance as good as what Congress has.

Congress must now decide what steps, if any, it can take to deal with the problem. It could try for a legislative fix, or it could adopt internal policies to minimize any disruptions.

In its painstaking analysis of the new law, the research service says the impact on Congress itself and the intent of Congress are difficult to ascertain.

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.”

The usual Obama “rush-rush and pass the scam” did not fool anyone who was actually watching what they did, not what they said:

“But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

This omission, whether intentional or inadvertent, raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service,” the report says. “The statute does not appear to be self-executing, but rather seems to require an administrating or implementing authority that is not specifically provided for by the statutory text.”

Congress will take care of themselves and “theirs” but regular Americans will suffer. Where are “our” representatives?

“Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, said lawmakers were in the same boat as many Americans, trying to figure out what the new law meant for them.

“If members of Congress cannot explain how it’s going to work for them and their staff, how will they explain it to the rest of America?” Mr. Chaffetz asked in an interview.”

And recall Congress forgot to require that uninsured kids with preexisting conditions be covered. Is it any wonder that Rasmussen polls now reflect the fact that 58 percent of Americans want the Obama health scam repealed?

Now that the Obama health scam has been passed, and doctors are disappearing, Andy Stern of SEIU is planning to run away and retire. No doubt Andy will have a great health care package to take with him paid for by the poor who pay union dues. Andy Stern will not have to worry about rising premiums because he will have a great health plan. But Americans will have to worry about rising premiums, which was supposed to be resolved by the Obama health scam:

“Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama’s healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

Many state governments — which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies — also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.

It is a very big loophole in health reform,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.”

Feeling duped yet?

“The irony here is that it was the Anthem rate increase that breathed new life into the healthcare bill,” said Jerry Flanagan, medical policy director of Consumer Watchdog, a longtime supporter of tougher premium regulation. “But there is nothing in this bill to guarantee that it doesn’t happen again.”

The lack of muscle is stoking concerns that more rate jumps — and an angry backlash from ratepayers — could undermine support for implementing the healthcare overhaul.”

Feeling angry yet?

More scams and publicity stunts are on their way:

“The president will stump the country talking about government’s eagerness to force insurance companies to get rid of pre-existing conditions as an obstacle to getting health coverage. He will highlight Medicare rebates. He will tout ending the closing of the federal drug benefits’ “doughnut hole” for seniors.

He will, in short, promote the ways in which government forces business to do the average person’s bidding in the hope of stirring more support for his programs than he’s been able to find so far.

The problem is that stubborn anti-government force defined, at least for now, as the Tea Party movement.

Both the current and former chairmen of the Federal Reserve spoke out recently about the need, finally, for fiscal restraint – in other words, for less government and, sadly, for tax increases.

The big danger is runaway budget deficits, they say, and the need for government, like families, to live within its means for a change.

That’s as much a battle cry (without the tax-increase part, of course) of the growing band of anti-Washingtonians out there who see themselves as part of the Tea Party movement.

Mr. Obama will need to adopt some of that thinking if he has any opportunity to prevent a wave from washing over his Democratic Party during November’s midterm elections.”

Where was the Left? Is our only hope now the Tea Party movement?

More scams are coming and more publicity stunts scheduled. The latest is the “economy is great” scam:

“Some of the talk about the state of the economy lately has grown downright giddy. [snip]

America’s Back! (So says the new cover of Newsweek.)

The economy is certainly growing, as it has been since last summer. And that growth appears more durable than it did just a few months ago, making a dip back into recession appear highly unlikely.

But the buoyant talk has gotten far ahead of the reality on the ground of the American economy.

That great March job number, for example, received a short-term boost from temporary Census Bureau hiring and the rebound from February snowstorms, so the underlying employment growth was somewhere around 50,000 jobs — not the 162,000 that made headlines, and far below the 130,000 or so jobs needed to keep up with population growth. The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits each week has remained stubbornly around 450,000, well above the levels expected in a hiring boom.

And while the stock market is up a lot, it has rebounded from generational lows. Much of the gains of the past year reflected the investors’ conclusion that the economy wasn’t going to collapse, not a harbinger of boom times ahead.[snip]

But that rate of expansion won’t be enough to pull the economy out of the deep hole it is in, given a 9.7 percent unemployment rate, and is merely enough to keep the hole from getting any deeper. By contrast, after the last recession of similar depth, in 1981-1982, the economy experienced five straight quarters of growth in the 7 to 9 percent range from the spring of 1983 through summer of 1984.

On Monday, the semiofficial arbiter of economic cycles said it would be “premature” to conclude that the recession that began in December 2007 had ended, as economists widely believe, in the summer of 2009. [snip]

Moreover, as the recovery progresses, major government supports for growth will eventually be pulled away. The boost from stimulus spending will start waning in the second half of this year, while the Federal Reserve, which has already ended its unconventional programs to prop up the economy, will eventually raise interest rates. [snip]

“Most of the deeper recessions in postwar U.S. history have been followed by strong recoveries, but this is a housing-bust experience,” said Hatzius, who expects growth to taper off to only a 1.5 percent rate in the second half of the year. “And if you look at international evidence, those have generally been much more moderate.”

Let’s not forget interest rates:

“Even as prospects for the American economy brighten, consumers are about to face a new financial burden: a sustained period of rising interest rates.

That, economists say, is the inevitable outcome of the nation’s ballooning debt and the renewed prospect of inflation as the economy recovers from the depths of the recent recession.

The shift is sure to come as a shock to consumers whose spending habits were shaped by a historic 30-year decline in the cost of borrowing.

“Americans have assumed the roller coaster goes one way,” said Bill Gross, whose investment firm, Pimco, has taken part in a broad sell-off of government debt, which has pushed up interest rates. “It’s been a great thrill as rates descended, but now we face an extended climb.”

The impact of higher rates is likely to be felt first in the housing market, which has only recently begun to rebound from a deep slump. [snip]

Along with the sell-off in bonds, the Federal Reserve has halted its emergency $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage debt, placing even more upward pressure on rates.[snip]

Another area in which higher rates are likely to affect consumers is credit card use. [snip]

Similarly, many car loans have already become significantly more expensive, with rates at auto finance companies rising to 4.72 percent in February from 3.26 percent in December, according to the Federal Reserve.

Washington, too, is expecting to have to pay more to borrow the money it needs for programs.”

Some will say, “Big Pink, put on some Pink colored glasses. Look at the stock market you naysayers.” But…:

“Think Dow 11,000 is a big deal? Think again.

The Dow Jones industrial average briefly hit the milestone Friday for the first time in 18 months before closing at 10,997.

But Wall Street analysts who study key stock index levels say all the attention paid to 11,000 is more like a big distraction. They worry that investors are ignoring another number at their peril: The surprisingly low volume of trading. As stocks have risen over the past year, the volume reflects the vulnerability of a rally riding on the shoulders of relatively few participants.

And that’s given pause even to the bulls.

“It worries a lot of us,” says Wellington Shields’ Frank Gretz, a technical analyst who specializes in pinpointing market levels at which stocks might suddenly rise or fall. He wonders whether the volume signals that the rally could soon peter out, like the big surges that preceded steep declines in the 1930s in the U.S. and in Japan more recently.

Louise Yamada, a 29-year veteran of technical analysis who heads an eponymous firm in New York, says she’s not just concerned but confused.

“Why is the market going up?” she asks. “You usually don’t see advances without volume.”

Spend your money in Las Vegas instead of the stock market. It’s safer and much more honest.

“The widely cited Dow index, which tracks stocks of 30 companies, is up 70 percent from its lows of more than a year ago. The climb has been one of the strongest in history, and it may herald a strong recovery. But it’s been propelled by relatively few trades.

The 200-day moving average volume on the New York Stock Exchange is now at 1.2 billion shares, down from 1.6 billion, or nearly 25 percent, a year ago.

In other words, if there is wisdom in crowds, the stock market is getting dumber.”

Dumb and dumber in the age of fake:

“But the hangover from the Great Recession and the lagging unemployment numbers will make it impossible to focus on improving the Internal Revenue Code.

Come 2011, however, the demand to start dealing seriously with the overhang of deficits and debt threatening the nation’s future will become irresistible. Whether we like it or not, we have been warned.

On Tuesday, Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told a New York audience that the time is coming when new taxes will have to be considered. “If at the end of the day, we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

On Wednesday in Dallas, Ben Bernanke, who now holds the same job, said “Inevitably, addressing the fiscal challenges posed by an aging population will require a willingness to make difficult choices. The arithmetic is, unfortunately, quite clear. To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”

The next day, at a breakfast with reporters in Washington, Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, confirmed that his economists have begun studying how to write a value-added tax, a form of national sales tax, because of growing congressional interest in drafting such a measure.

Elmendorf reminded the journalists of the grim news contained in his agency’s analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals. Agreeing with Bernanke that the current course is “unsustainable,” he said that unless something changes, the U.S. will emerge from the Obama years spending one-quarter more than it collects in revenue — 25 percent compared to 19 percent of the gross domestic product.

Closing the gap “can’t be solved through minor changes,” he said. Revenues projected under current laws would barely be sufficient to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense and interest on the national debt. Everything else would depend on finding new revenues — or borrowing.”

While the country worries about “racist” canines, and African-Americans are called “racist” for belonging to the Tea Party, Obama plots new scams and publicity stunts. The new scams and publicity stunts will cement the “tax and spend” label that Bill Clinton stripped from the Democratic label. But “tax and spend” is back with a vengeance, and with justification, from Republican play books.

But fear not, there will be bread and circuses – now updated to scams and publicity stunts – by Barack Obama.

Barack Obama will bow to dictators (the latest bow to the Chinese leader) and snub what used to be friends and allies in order not to offend the dictators.

But fear not, there will be Obama bread and circuses and scams and publicity stunts.

In November 2010 we get to screw Congress now that they screw us.

Share

88 thoughts on “For Once, Congress Screws Itself

  1. It is a well settled principle of contract construction and no less statutory construction that any ambiguity in the meaning and application of the instrument, i.e. health care bill etc. be resolved most strictly against the party who drafted the legislation. And whom pray tell might that be? Why the dim of course. Hey Poosie, you asked for it, you got it, Toyota.

  2. Cambridge is going nuts too (will men be offered Chippendale credits?):

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100412/wl_uk_afp/britaindanceuniversityoffbeat

    A renowned debating society at Cambridge University said Monday it would offer pole dancing tuition to members, in a building more used to the presence of international statesmen.

    The Cambridge Union Society said female students would be offered lessons in the sensuous dance more often associated with strip clubs than the historic chambers of one of the world’s top universities.

    Lessons would be given in the Blue Room at the union’s building, which is more commonly used for debates, said the society.[snip]

    Speakers to have addressed students include wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill, former US president Theodore Roosevelt and India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

    A Cambridge Union spokeswoman defended the move, saying there was “nothing degrading” about it.

    “We are of the opinion that classes like these are a way of empowering women, as well as being a fantastic way to exercise and have fun together with other women,” she said.

    “If an intelligent, independent woman wishes to learn a particular form of dance in respectable surroundings, we see nothing degrading in that.”

  3. Poll dancing at Cambridge…well, the job market looks bad, even for an Ivy league débutante. Don’t be so hard on them wbb, it’s just an effort to give on the job training. Women only make 70 cents to the dollar vs men. This may be a, shall we say, a “leg up”.

  4. Marc Ambinder surprisingly has some common sense today:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/against-the-economic-cheerleaders/38862/

    It can’t be a coincidence that Newsweek and BusinessWeek both proclaim (with caveats buried deep within) that America is back, that the worst is over, that a bright future for the country is ahead. It’s not the analysis that troubles me, it’s the perspective from which that analysis is derived. It is absolutely true that the worst is over, and is absolutely true that way too many Americans are suffering, and will continue to suffer, much more than when similar headlines were written about the ending of other recessions.

    Americans don’t think the economy’s getting better, and they’re not confident it will get better. That’s the governing party’s major political challenge for the midterms. It also produces a disjuncture between elite opinion, which is talking up the economy, and public opinion, which is living with it.

    I think the authors of these pieces are talking to their friends at private equity firms and on Wall Street — where exuberance reigns — and aren’t talking as much to vice presidents at, say, General Electric. It’s harder to talk to corporations when they’re not performing well and still in cautionary/recession mode. So there are more sources available to reporters who will say good things about the economy than will say bad things.

    Furthermore, those writing the articles may have had trouble refinancing their mortgage, but probably aren’t underwater: they have jobs, they aren’t mobile, so they are somewhat disconnected from the depth of economic duress. (Again, these articles include caveats, but they’re intellectual, not emotional — the authors don’t give much weight to the experiences that don’t comport with their own.)

    The truth is that unemployment is massive and people have a myriad of challenges. Millions face their own private liquidity crises. The unemployment rate might rise between now and November as people dip their toes back into the job market and discover that it’s still way too cold.

    In general, the economy we see today is probably the economy we’ll see in November. That creates a political challenge for the White House and Democrats: they desperately want credit for saving the economy, and they’re eager to participate in stories that play up the economy. The mental figurin’ is that if the status quo is the status quo, it’s be better to talk it up than to project caution.

    It’s true that the White House and its officials tend to be prudent, and that no statement on the economy escapes the barriers of the press office without a prominent mention of unemployment and lending. But if they believe that people’s general level of suffering will remain constant, it makes sense to talk up the good stuff. Still, it’s a sensitive balance. Smart pols know that political reality isn’t what is, or what ought to be, but what’s thought to be.

  5. Really long, and I apologize, but you really need to read it. heres the link if you want to check out the pics. Don’t hate me for the lenght…

    http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2010/04/13/exclusive-radical-awakening-from-america-hater-to-hero/#more-104670

    EXCLUSIVE: Radical Awakening: From America Hater to Heroby Matthew Vadum

    From the April 2010 issue of Townhall
    magazine:

    Brandon Darby learned something from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. Once a hard-core radical who sided with progressive revolutionaries, Darby prevented a left-wing terrorist attack on the 2008 GOP convention. Now, this America-loving patriot is the target of the domestic extremists he once called “friends.”

    Did you know that a courageous former radical helped to avert a planned left-wing terrorist attack at the 2008 Republican National Convention that might have killed who knows how many Americans?

    Neither did I until recently.

    That’s because if you disrupt a terrorist attack on Americans by Islamic fundamentalists as Northwest Flight 253 passenger Jasper Schuringa did on Christmas Day, you’re a hero; however, if you take the initiative to undermine a terrorist attack on Americans by supposedly well intentioned left-wing fundamentalists, you might as well be a terrorist yourself.

    Brandon Darby, who in recent years also refused leftists’ invitations to get involved in Venezuelan communist subversion here in America and in anti-Israeli terrorism in Palestine, learned this unpalatable truth the hard way.

    The Left-Wing Plot to Kill Republicans

    After years of in-your-face protests, confrontational tactics and working with America-haters, Darby eventually experienced a political epiphany. He rejected the radical Left and its culture of political violence. He came to realize that America, for all its faults, wasn’t such a bad place after all.

    “I felt I had a duty to atone after badmouthing my country for so many years,” Darby told me in an interview. “I love my country.”

    But Darby didn’t always love his country.

    Darby previously considered himself a revolutionary. His charisma and militant anti-Americanism made the intense Texan a larger-than-life figure among leftist activists in the South.

    He openly called for the overthrow of the U.S. government, which he considered too corrupt and oppressive to be reformed. He expressed his hatred of police as guardians of the status quo. He consorted with eco-terrorist tree-spikers, radical feminists and black nationalists.

    He was approached to rob an armored car and asked to commit arson to fight gentrification. He mouthed politically correct slogans and platitudes about the Bush administration. Government didn’t care about people, and in his eyes, the much-maligned response to Hurricane Katrina proved it.

    But around the same time, the former radical community organizer was turning away from radicalism, and at tremendous personal risk, he undermined a leftwing terrorist plot to attack the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. If he hadn’t taken action, Americans exercising their free speech rights and police officers might have been killed.

    Without informing his fellow anarchists, Darby offered his assistance to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and, at the FBI’s request, infiltrated a leftwing group known as the Austin Affinity Group. The outfit had joined with a larger coalition of progressive organizations that facetiously called itself the “RNC Welcoming Committee.” The committee hoped to lay siege to the GOP convention that nominated the presidential ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

    The FBI sent Darby to meet with anarchists who were developing their plan at a bookstore in Austin.

    “It was a group of people whose explicit purpose was to organize a group of ‘black bloc’ anarchists to shut the Republican convention down by any means necessary,” he explained. “They showed videos of people throwing Molotov cocktails, and they were giving people ideas.”

    The two 20-something plotters on whom Darby informed, David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, had made homemade riot shields and were ready to use them in St. Paul to help demonstrators block streets near the Xcel Energy Center in order to prevent GOP delegates from participating in the convention. The shields were discovered and confiscated.

    But McKay and Crowder were undeterred by this setback. Together they manufactured instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.

    During a search of a residence, police found gas masks, slingshots, helmets, knee pads and eight Molotov cocktails consisting of bottles filled with gasoline with attached wicks made from tampons.

    “They mixed gasoline with oil so it would stick to clothing and skin and burn longer,” Darby told me.

    Thanks to Darby’s cooperation with the FBI, the two anarchist would-be bomb throwers are now languishing in prison. McKay entered a “guilty” plea and was sentenced in May 2009 to 48 months in prison plus three years of supervised release for possession of an unregistered “firearm,” illegal manufacture of a firearm and possession of a firearm with no serial number. A week before, Crowder cut a deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 months in prison for possession of an unregistered firearm.

    McKay received the stiffer sentence in part because he fabricated a tall tale about Darby’s involvement in the plot.

    During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis went out of his way to make a specific legal finding that McKay obstructed justice by falsely accusing Darby of inducing him to manufacture the incendiary devices.

    Davis told McKay he crossed the line between peaceful dissent and violent protest. “You were leading the charge. You and Crowder were coming up here [to Minnesota] to do anarchy against the system.”

    But now the story takes a strange turn.

    After Darby, who until the end of 2008 had been a confidential FBI informant, revealed that he had worked with authorities to pre-empt the violent conspiracy, he became the subject of a campaign of vilification by the Left.

    Google Darby’s name and the words “snitch” and “rat” appear. Cyber-squatters appropriated his name and created a hateful Web site to defame him.

    The floodgates of abuse burst open after Darby acknowledged in an open letter posted at an alternative news Web site that not only had he worked with the FBI, but he also “strongly” stood behind his decision to do so.

    The irretrievably liberal New York Times ignored his heroism. A Jan. 5, 2009, article focused not on Darby’s lifesaving intervention but on the feelings of “betrayal” his former allies in left-wing anarchist circles were experiencing.

    The paper showed how shocked and appalled Scott Crow, who with Darby co-founded the Common Ground Relief agency in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, was after learning about Darby’s cooperation with the FBI.

    “I put it all on the line to defend him when accusations first came out,” Crow said. “Brandon Darby is somebody I had entrusted with my life in New Orleans, and now I feel endangered by him.” Why someone who presumably hadn’t committed a crime would feel “endangered” by knowing an FBI informant is unclear.

    ACORN founder Wade Rathke (shown at left in above photo), who worked as a professional agitator for the violent Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s, would have preferred that Republican delegates be incinerated.

    He denounced Darby for working with the authorities to disrupt the domestic terrorists. “It seemed so, how should I say it, ’60s?”

    It’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks,” Rathke wrote on his blog.

    This response to ideological apostasy is not altogether surprising. Leftists who abandon their faith are demonized by their former co-religionists. Relentless attacks on Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and former radical David Horowitz continue to the present day, decades after they moved rightward.

    Right-Wing Violence Bad, Left-Wing Violence Good?

    Compare the treatment of Darby at the hands of the Left to the respectful— often groveling—treatment afforded ObamaCare architect Robert Creamer.

    A HuffingtonPost.com contributor and husband of shrill socialist Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Creamer served prison time for kiting checks and failing to pay withholding taxes for his leftist nonprofit, Illinois Public Action Fund. Just like his liberal friends in Congress and the Obama administration, he refused to roll back spending and instead created a modified Ponzi scheme in order to continue drawing his full $100,000 salary.

    This crusader for social justice and political consultant to Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and impeached Democratic Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich even whined at his 2006 sentencing that he received a five-month period of incarceration, well below the 30 to 37 months called for in federal sentencing guidelines. The media failed to call him on it.

    Convicted cop-killing activists Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal are legends on the Left. Black Panther Abu-Jamal in particular enjoys a cult following among radicals even though no serious person—including Abu-Jamal himself, who failed to claim to be innocent at his trial—contests that in 1981 he shot and killed Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in cold blood.

    Creamer, Peltier and Abu-Jamal are all heroes to the Left no matter what they did, and to some precisely because of what they did.

    This is because on the Left there is a presumption of good intentions even by fellow-traveling terrorists. As left-wing talk radio host Thom Hartmann told me last year: “My left-wing crazies are better than your right-wing crazies.”

    Hartmann explained:

    “Your right-wing crazies are incited to violence based on fear and hate of people because of whom they are, because they’re gay, because they’re Catholic, because they’re Jewish, because they’re black, because they’re Hispanic. And our left-wing crazies are incited to violence because they’re trying to create a better world. They’re trying to save the environment in the case of the eco-terrorists. They’re trying to end the Vietnam War in the case of the Weather Underground. They’re trying to bring about civil rights in the case of the Symbionese Liberation Army and some of the other black terrorist groups that were operating in the 1970s” (emphasis added).

    To the Left, violent acts aimed at desirable ends are worthy of praise, especially if aimed at the other side.

    Internationally known Marxist author Naomi Klein has praised the riots that took place during the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and openly called for violence at the 2004 Republican convention, urging protesters to bring the Iraq War to the streets of New York City. The Canadian writer wasn’t ostracized by the Left after her outrageous statement; if anything, her public stature has only grown since 2004.

    If right-wing terrorists plotted to attack a Democratic National Convention, whoever foiled the conspiracy would be immortalized in film, literature and song as a savior of democracy.

    “If you flip the equation around and it had been a group of conservatives threatening to use force to prevent those on the Left from meeting, everyone would expect the government to infiltrate them and they would also expect the FBI to stop them and charge them with crimes,” Darby said.

    “But when it’s leftists that organize to prevent Republicans from being able to meet, then all of a sudden it’s considered government oppression. There’s something wrong with that, and no one points that out, and it’s really offensive and damaging to our system.”

    Social justice-oriented terrorism isn’t ugly and anti-American, according to the nation’s entertainment-media complex; it’s downright praiseworthy and hip. So it should come as no surprise that Crowder and McKay are in the process of being rehabilitated by the Left.

    Early on, the duo became a cause célèbre for the Left, dubbed the Texas 2. Now documentary filmmakers are currently making a movie about them called—you guessed it—“Better This World.” The documentary, which is reportedly in the post-production phase, received an HBO Documentary Films Fellowship.

    No doubt there will be more praise heaped on them as they ascend to the Left’s pantheon of social justice champions, joining Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and the Unabomber.

    The Journal Away From Radicalism

    But no one is singing the praises of Darby, a genuine American hero.

    Born in Pasadena, Texas, in 1976, Darby’s efforts in post-Katrina New Orleans were highlighted favorably in the media, most notably in a Jonathan Demme documentary that was shown on the “Tavis Smiley Show” on PBS.

    When Darby learned people were suffering in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, he moved there, defying police orders not to enter the stricken city. With $50, he co-founded Common Ground in the home of Malik Rahim, a veteran community organizer and former Black Panther who did prison time for armed robbery.

    “When we started, everyone in the city was armed, everyone was scared, and there was a complete lack of law enforcement,” said Darby. “The few roving bands of law enforcement that were present didn’t like us very much because of the fact that we were involved with people like Malik Rahim, who to this day continues to advocate for those who have attacked law enforcement personnel.”

    “We were young, we were caught up in the fervor of helping others and fighting injustice, and at that time, we couldn’t see why people like law enforcement didn’t like Malik,” Darby said.

    Common Ground was no mere relief agency. It was a group of far-Left revolutionaries who viewed their work as an extension of their politics.

    In a promotional video, Rahim thunders to volunteers: “You are showing this government that the people, that the people in this country do care for peace and justice and that we will stand for peace and justice and that we will do what it takes to restore peace and justice back to America.”

    When Common Ground was threatened, the radical Left mobilized to defend it. Police were “freaked out because there were all these Black Panthers who’d had shootouts with the police years ago, and they’re in this house and they refused to leave, so it turned into this really stressful ordeal,” Darby explained.

    Despite many obstacles, Common Ground quickly became a successful nonprofit group that helped alleviate the suffering of poor people in the devastated city, especially in the hard-hit 9th Ward.

    Supported by donations that flowed in from across the country, in its first three years 22,000 volunteers worked for Common Ground. A magnet for outraged radicals ranging from garden variety collectivists to militant vegans to pagan lesbians, the group gutted flood damaged houses without bothering to obtain permits and provided free health care and meals.

    The group was profiled by ABC’s “Nightline,” and the media treated Darby as a savior. With its contributions to the city, the group began to wield political influence, Darby said. Even its initial detractors begrudgingly admitted Common Ground’s positive impact on the Crescent City.

    Over time, a lot of the things Darby experienced with Common Ground led him to question his political beliefs, and these experiences offer a window into what happens when the radical Left takes over an area.

    In bed with real-estate developers, New Orleans wanted to use eminent domain to condemn many vacant flood damaged houses. According to Darby, many anarchists refused to join his fight to protect the property rights of homeowners, because they didn’t believe in private property.

    “I just started putting the call out, and all these libertarians, Republicans and Democrats, started showing up. And what we would do was any time there were bulldozers we would just get in front of them and wouldn’t let them work,” he said.

    “We had our lawyers file lawsuits, and so next thing you know, they backed away from it. And they started to work with us to identify where the residents were, and we’d ask the residents if they wanted their place demolished or not.”

    Darby defied the politically correct “consensus” method of group decision making and riled feathers by daring to tell aimless volunteers what to do. After vegan volunteers took over the Common Ground kitchen and tried to inflict their dietary preferences on the poor, it occurred to Darby that the leftist-anarchist approach with its aversion to hierarchy would never work in the real world.

    “Like most people driven by a strong dogma, the majority of the people who took over were from Berkeley, and they came in under the guise of helping,” he said.

    “They tried to use the experience to ‘correct’ the culture and lifestyle of the working-class poor. They tried to use the black residents of New Orleans as lab rats and guinea pigs, and I didn’t like that at all—and the residents didn’t like it either.”

    For example, some of the activists tried to organize the residents into “collectives,” and another group of gay activists took over part of a church that had donated its space to help relief efforts. “We were helping to rebuild the church, but then some radicals took over and started using over half the space and designated it as a ‘queer safe place,’” Darby said.

    This infuriated the church leadership who were already uncomfortable with being associated with so many radical activists.

    “It’s not about you coming here and creating your utopia,” Darby explained.

    “It’s about helping these residents and making them feel comfortable. The radicals wanted to make residents sit through political orientations in order to get fed. I objected and that got me called a dictator.”

    Common Ground leaders continued to insist on indoctrinating young volunteers and on continuing with in-your-face protest tactics, which lost their usefulness after the group became well established and had connections with people in the city, Darby said.

    “The people making decisions for the city about how aid was distributed and about where FEMA work crews and search-and-rescue crews operated, developed relationships with us,” he explained. “They were completely open to hear our perspective and wanted us to participate in what decisions were made, but unfortunately many of the other community organizers were stuck in a fight-the-power dogma, which ultimately hindered their ability to serve those in need. There was no official of local government there that we couldn’t call on their cell phone and set up a dinner meeting with or enjoy a cup of coffee with.”

    After initially having rocky relations with the New Orleans Police and other local authority figures, Darby came to realize that, in the hurricane-ravaged city, relief volunteers and the authorities were on the same side—both sides wanted to help people.

    Darby’s “eureka” moment came as he began to accept the idea that not everyone in government was a villain.

    He credits Maj. John Bryson of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) with helping him to stop viewing everyone in government as the enemy.

    Bryson (pictured above), who, in the wake of Katrina, was the NOPD’s 5th District commander, an area that encompassed the especially hard-hit Lower 9th Ward, observed Darby’s transformation over time.

    When Bryson first met Darby, he was “so up in my face it was unbelievable,” Bryson told me. “Radical” was too weak a word to describe Darby, Bryson said.

    When the two first met, Darby promised that his fellow activists would be videotaping police and that they wouldn’t hesitate to report anything they didn’t like to the media. Bryson helped to improve the relationship by giving Darby his cell phone number and told him to contact him directly if police officers misbehaved.

    Bryson offered to help Darby but cautioned him that “if we find that you are not here to help our citizens, then we’re going to have a problem,” Bryson explained, “and that was our agreement.”

    Over time, the two, who had been filled with mutual distrust and hostility, began to get along, even to like each other as friends.

    Bryson watched Common Ground—which, in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, he said, had more people on the ground than the federal government—begin to flourish. The group opened shelters for women, families and children, offering services to locals that governments at the time were unable to provide.

    As relations with the police improved dramatically, Darby confessed to Bryson that he had never had this kind of positive relationship with any kind of law enforcement personnel. The feeling was mutual.

    Bryson praised Darby for cooperating with the FBI:

    “Everybody [on the Left] hates Brandon because he did the right thing for the right reasons. Anytime anyone in this country, in this state, in this city, or even in this world is going to do some horrible things to innocent people, if a good man does not stand up, or a good woman for that matter, then we’re in trouble. And Brandon stood up and did the right thing. He stole my heart as he said, ‘I thought about you and how well you worked with us, and I couldn’t see innocent people getting hurt.’”

    Plots Abroad

    Although Darby’s positive experiences with New Orleans police had forced him to begin questioning his anarchist beliefs, a trip to Marxist Venezuela helped to kill off his remaining radical impulses.

    The trip came as the U.S. government was taking a beating in the media for its post-Katrina relief efforts. At the time, Venezuela’s communist strongman, Hugo Chavez, began trying to embarrass the Bush administration by offering aid to the Katrina-hit Gulf Coast.

    Chavez had already been running what political scientists call a “public diplomacy” campaign in the U.S. to help bolster American support for his regime. The propaganda effort consisted of funneling discounted home heating oil to former U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy’s, D-Mass., nonprofit group, Citizens Energy Corp. The nonprofit then distributed the oil to poor people, and Kennedy (pictured above behind lectern) went on TV to berate the Bush administration, which he said “cut fuel assistance.” Kennedy boosted his benefactor, boasting in a commercial that “CITGO, owned by the Venezuelan people,” had helped poor Americans while their own government stood idly by.

    Darby traveled to Caracas in 2006 as part of a Common Ground delegation to the Chavez government to seek funding to keep Common Ground afloat.

    “I had this idea of having ‘Chavez trailers’ for displaced residents to live in. This would embarrass FEMA into supplying trailers,” he said.

    Darby said he didn’t realize when he came up with the concept that using money from abroad to influence the U.S. government might be illegal, but Chavez government officials he met with insisted it would violate U.S. law.

    “They told me I would get in trouble, and they wanted to work out a way to make the project happen,” he said.

    In the month he was there, Venezuelan officials introduced him to executives of PDVSA, the government-owned oil company that owns CITGO, which operates a chain of gas stations in the U.S. They pressured Darby to journey to neighboring Colombia to meet with a group aligned with the narco-terror organization FARC and to visit another revolutionary group in Maracaibo, Venezuela.

    According to Darby, Chavez wanted to create a terrorist network in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. This is the same Chavez who blamed the recent earthquake in Haiti on the United States and who called President George W. Bush “the Devil” during a United Nations speech, so some might find his efforts at subversive activities in the United States hard to take seriously. However, it’s important to remember that Chavez has close ties to Iran and Cuba and allows terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah to operate offices in Caracas.

    (Long before he learned of the RNC plot, Darby reached out to the FBI to undermine terrorism. A longtime Texas friend, the late Riad Hamad [pictured above], had tried to hijack Darby’s plan to provide medical assistance in war-torn parts of the world. Darby wanted to create a group called Critical Response that would have sent medics into war zones to help civilians caught in the crossfire in places such as Lebanon and Darfur. Hamad, founder of the much-investigated Palestinian Children’s Welfare Fund, told him he wanted to send medics to Israel and put explosives on motorcycles and boobytrap ambulances in order to kill Jews. Hamad also hatched an elaborate plan to funnel money to Hamas and Hezbollah. Around the same time, Darby viewed a very graphic Israeli first responders’ training video. “At the time I was conflicted about what to do, but seeing the dead bodies of Israeli children in that tape made the so-called Palestinian activists’ chant ‘no justice, no peace,’ take on a whole new meaning. I decided the only ethical thing to do was to tell law enforcement what I knew.”)

    To Darby’s astonishment, during his stay in Caracas, senior officials in the Chavez government and in PDVSA told him they wanted him to create a revolutionary army of guerrillas in the swamps of Louisiana.

    “At the very last meeting they ramped up the pressure,” Darby said. They taunted him, saying, “What? You’re not a revolutionary?”

    Despite intense pressure from his Venezuelan hosts, he refused. This was the last straw for him.

    “I realized I didn’t like Venezuela, the authoritarianism of it, and I started to realize how brilliant and miraculous the American system of checks and balances was,” Darby said. “There was still something brilliant about the fact that this nation had institutionalized a system of checks and balances that has been working since this nation was founded. I realized just how hard a task that is.”

    Common Ground, divided by radical factions with harebrained ideas constantly warring with each other, was a living example of left-wing radicalism in action.

    “When I would leave Common Ground for a few days I would be worried that a power vacuum could develop and factions could displace me while I was away, and that’s just the way things are in places like Venezuela,” he said. “It is actually absurd to want the United States government to go away, and that’s when it really hit me that my ideas were wrong.”

    Darby said he’s still proud of his Common Ground experience on the whole. “I’m proud of helping people, but I’m ashamed of what I used to believe,” Darby admitted.

    “Thankfully, I had the honor of serving my country by working undercover with the FBI and participating in efforts to protect the safety and civil rights of others.”

    (This article appears in the current issue of Townhall magazine and is posted here with the magazine’s permission.)

  6. Holy smokes Admin, your post is chucked full of so much info, I can only comment on part of it at a time. 🙂

    I hope that the nub of a tail left for congressfolks stays a stub. We all know they will fix it for themselves, but I wonder who the genius was that put it in the bill in the first place? Was it put in by someone that wanted to give them a third finger salute, in secret? Was it Karma slipping in?

    It will give new meaning to the phrase, “Read the darn bill!”

    Great post!

  7. Shadowfax, the link we provided identifies Senator Grassley as the one who put in the… oh, here’s the text we omitted:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html

    The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

    A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.

    “The whole point is to make sure political leaders live under the laws they pass for everyone else,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday. “In this case, after the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that’s where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes.”

    The federal employees program, created in 1959, now provides coverage to eight million people and, according to the Congressional Research Service, is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the country.

    “Read the damn bill” indeed.

  8. I have just today been talking to my financial guy about this market. I didn’t jump back in because I don’t trust it and have lost so much money. What the hell is going on. I would love to make even a small amount back, but ….how can it be going up when the unemployment is going up and we have no jobs/ we have no jobs! We have no manufacturing to get back jobs. I don’t understand it at all.

  9. The whole point is to make sure political leaders live under the laws they pass for everyone else,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday. “In this case, after the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that’s where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes.”
    **********************

    Is he saying what I think he is saying? That they should fix it to give themselves back the Cadillac plans? Because he starts out saying the right thing and then…

  10. Admin
    Thanks for pointing out the person that put the original provision in the bill. Funny that it was a Republican working on the bill that caused the overanxious Dems to overlook it and now are having to worry over THEIR health insurance.

    I hope if it’s fixed, it will make all congress, the Pres and staff to have to use it too. If it’s good enough for us common folk, it’s got to be good enough for them too.

  11. “We are of the opinion that classes like these are a way of empowering women, as well as being a fantastic way to exercise and have fun together with other women,” she said.
    ———-
    What a crock, women don’t learn pole dancing to entertain each other, they do it to please men. Empowering women…to dance like a stripper………..oh pa-lezzzzzzzzzzzze.

  12. Look at this way, we can make extra tax money on those pole dancers, they make really good money and we can tax their tips too.

  13. I don’t understand what is going on with the stock market either…but I didn’t understand back at the end of the election either, when all of a sudden, it kept falling and the MSM kept claiming that the Fraud running back to give his election speeches showed that he knew the most about the economic crisis and was the best to elect over McCain.
    I thought to myself, when did ignoring a crisis become the intelligent, wise thing to do? I wondered if the stock market was being manipulated by big money that wanted the Fraud in office…money was being pulled out and put where? Out of the country?
    Is it now being brought in to help the Fraud in the 2010 election and polls?

    Maybe I am just crazy.

  14. Gonzotx,

    Guess you all know a Dem won Wexlers district in FL. Repubs gave no support or fight.

    ============================

    I wonder why not??? Why did the Rethugs not put up an opponent or what??? Did they just roll over??? hmmm, hmmm, hmmm sounds like a pay off to me! Wexler is never to be forgotten as it was his mouth at the bylaws meeting that helped screw Hillary!! We will see soon…I don’t like what Beck and PAUL RYAN have been doing together this week!

    I’d keep my money under the mattress for a while longer if I were you…I think the bottom is about to fall out!

  15. Krautenhammer had an interesting tidbit on O’Reilly tonight, he said the Nuke talk was a farce…they only got South America and Canada to give up their nukes, hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Sounds like annexation plan to me!!

  16. I’d keep my money under the mattress for a while longer if I were you…I think the bottom is about to fall out!
    ———-
    That’s where I would put my money too, if I had any to save.

  17. Admin, you are to be commended for posting the most comprehensive research we have seen to date interpreting the HCR Bill. You have pointed out stunning revelations that the population at large will be very upset to learn are now law when these points of light go mainstream. (I’m sure there are many more revelations to come demonstrating the cunning used by this administration to pull another fast one (after the banking crisis) on the public at large.)

    I appreciate the use of your time and resources passing this information along to us…

    I’ve sort of condensed some of the info in your post to begin disseminating ambiguities with a greater understanding (of what the hell is going on) to ultimately in the end, we’re all on the same page.
    _______________________________________________________-

    “It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.) may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.” [snip]

    “In its painstaking analysis of the new law, the research service says the impact on Congress itself and the intent of Congress are difficult to ascertain.

    The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.” [snip]

    ““But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.” [snip]

    “The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

    Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.” [snip]

    “In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.”

    “This omission, whether intentional or inadvertent, raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service,” the report says. “The statute does not appear to be self-executing, but rather seems to require an administrating or implementing authority that is not specifically provided for by the statutory text.”[snip]
    ___________________________________

    The perfect excuse for the appointment of the “Health Care Panel” labeled as a “Death Panel” by Sarah Palin and denounced as a Palin fantasy by the Obama camp.

    __________________

    Yes, it could be amended to read: those that voted against the HCR Bill will be ineligible for coverage. We know how Obama relishes punishment of critics for not falling in lockstep with his pronouncements.
    _________________________________

    “Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama’s healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

    And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

    Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

    Many state governments — which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies — also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.

    “It is a very big loophole in health reform,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.”
    ___________________________

    admin
    April 13th, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/us/politics/13health.html

    “The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

    A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.

    “The whole point is to make sure political leaders live under the laws they pass for everyone else,” Mr. Grassley said Tuesday. “In this case, after the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that’s where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes.”

    I guess, I’m having trouble processing the above statement enough to understand what Grassley ‘s intent is….What does he mean? If his initial statement stands alone as what he truly believes; is he suggesting the language in the above quote was incorrectly written and should be corrected noting, “political leaders” need not be included in the final version of the laws they pass for everyone else?

    “The federal employees program, created in 1959, now provides coverage to eight million people and, according to the Congressional Research Service, is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the country.

    __________________________

    Which goes back to the first quote in this post. Does the Bill dump or eliminate the employer-sponsored health insurance program as the example for other unionized corporations to permanently disband the employer-sponsored health insurance practice?

  18. I like to make a suggestion about the pictures found under “Barack Obama Is The Third Bush Term”. I think a series of pictures of Barack Obama morphing into Jimmy Carter may be more appropriate in many respects, although Jimmy does seem to have a hint of a humanitarian side of which Obama is devoid.

  19. This article is filled with so many factual twists and turns that one could easily make many comments. I won’t do that other than to say that the portion dealing with the congressional rats’ health insurance is damn funny. How embarrassing for DemoRats especially! This ensures that the fiasco of a health care bill will remain in the spotlight, and any American who is paying attention will get to see how congress elevates themselves above the rest of us when the fix comes in. I’m going to
    venture to say that congress will fix this ommision to their liking which will
    make the stark differences between how healthcare works for them as opposed to everyone else. The differences in their plan as compared to the plan they foisted on the American public wasn’t so widely publicized previously, but any fix that I believe will be made in their favor will come at a time when more shortcomnings in Obamacare will be made public, and more Americans will begin to realize that they were screwed in the process. The fix will show that these idiots certainly didn’t read nor understand the bill that they championed for the masses, and that will not sit well with most people. As predicted, when a bill in which no one knows or truly understands the content of the bill in its entirety, and the ramifications of such, is then subsequently enacted into law, lots of nasty surprises surface. Expect more of these surprises, and more discontent from the masses concerning this bill.

    As for Mr. Deutch beating Mr. Lynch in Florida yesterday, one has to consider the district, which has many diehard Democrats, of which many are Jewish. Jews supported Obama disproportionately. It will take some time for the extreme diehards to turn, but it will eventually happen. The elections in November
    WILL lead to a decimated Democratic party in many states, and the tsunami will perpetuate itself for years to come. Obama is at least doing one thing correctly which is the destruction of the progressive brand in the US, although he is also unfortunately wreaking havoc on the US as a whole.

  20. The Health Care Insurance company enrichment act is exposing the terrifying incompetence of the Democratic Congress and White House. They cannot even figure out how to legislate their and their staff’s !%^*ing insurance. Hubris, crooked deals, inexperience, and garden variety stupidity are the norm. Does anyone in the entire party understand anything about public policy and law? Anything? So now they screwed their own staff as well as themselves. And they did not give themselves a legal way out of this mess except for more legislation. They wanted to pass this POS and then run for cover and crawl out later in the year to campaign. They will have to legislatively fix this or their staff will do them in. Which of course gives them no cover for not fixing the mess in which they left the rest of the country. The errors are compounding themselves daily. The Democrats love affair with Obama and the mad rush to cram any old crap legislation through reminds me of the old axiom ” Marry in haste and repent at leisure”.

  21. nomobama
    April 14th, 2010 at 6:49 am

    “I’m going to venture to say that congress will fix this omission to their liking which will make the stark differences between how healthcare works for them as opposed to everyone else. The differences in their plan as compared to the plan they foisted on the American public wasn’t so widely publicized previously, but any fix that I believe will be made in their favor will come at a time when more short comnings in Obamacare will be made public, and more Americans will begin to realize that they were screwed in the process.”
    _________________________

    This oversight will lead to the Public demanding Congress be dissolved playing into the Globalist plans of destroying democracy and America. Otherwise, Grassley’s move makes absolutely no sense at all.

    (Just like Hitler conveniently dissolving Parliament.)

  22. This article is filled with so many factual twists and turns that one could easily make many comments. I won’t do that other than to say that the portion dealing with the congressional rats’ health insurance is damn funny. How embarrassing for DemoRats especially! This ensures that the fiasco of a health care bill will remain in the spotlight, and any American who is paying attention will get to see how congress elevates themselves above the rest of us when the fix comes in. I’m going to
    ————————————-
    And the Republicans will make the Dimocrats do it to themselves.

    Just remember, the Republicans have an amendment which made it out of committee by a vote of 13 to 12 (I believe it was straight party line) which would require Congress to accept the same health care deform bill which they rammed down the throats of their constituents, so arrogantly, deceptively and undemocratically.

    So when the dims use their overwhelming electoral majority to defeat this amendment and enact a fix which excludes them from the pain they have inflicted on their constituents, perhaps even the mind boggling stupid half of the population who put these traitors in office will come to their senses and realize they how badly they have been screwed.

    But I must tell you I am not holding my breath. I am convinced that half the population will never wake up. They are too politically stupid. Remember, they voted for Obama. If they could not bring themselves to vote republicans they should have stayed home. And that goes for alot of Republicans who crossed party lines and voted for this smiling tyrant.

    What I hear now from some of them is I am too old to worry about this. It will not affect me. That is the closest they come to acknowledging their part in the Mistake of ’08, which will turn out to be a tragedy for the American People when it has run its course.

    It does not take a rocket scientist to see where this thing is headed. Mounting debt, a declining universe of taxapayers (51% at last count), and an impatient banker with better things to do with his money. I have told you before that Obama has an executive order on his desk to permit massive Chinese Immigration to this country with the understanding that they will work over the internet and not take US jobs. That is reliable hearsay, not speculation. The speculation is that he will sell our public lands to the Chinese. You say the public will not tolerate that. Bullshit. I say they will if conditions get desperate enough they will roll over. And big media who speaks for the economic and cultural elites will assure them they are doing the right thing. Would I like to be wrong about this? Hell yes! But I am afraid I am not.

    The handwriting is on the wall. Unless you can show me the path out of this, because for the life of me, I do not see it. The only possible answer is to run these people out of office, and get people in there who care about the country, rather than lining their own nests and propping up Hussein Obama.

  23. I wish some enterprising reporter (an oxymoron) would ask him about that executive order point blank. He will lie or evade the question. That does not phase him. But I have to assume there are enough people around him who know about it. And his evasions will make them nervous, for the part they played in it.

  24. The American people will tolerate a lot of things from a bad president- hypocrisy, fraud even LIES. but the one thing they will not tolerate is WEAKNESS! Demonstrate Obama is a weak and inept president, voila, we have a loser.

  25. wbboei

    An excellent article Larry, except for this:

    “Jake Tapper, to his continuing credit, was not afraid to ask some tough questions. i.e. what specific actions the Chinese committed to.

    Q-1: is that really a tough question? Or is it merely an obvious one?

    Q-2: did Tapper challenge the inadequate answer?

    Q-3: did Tapper make any attempt to connect the dots?

    In my opinion, Tapper is what he has always been: a shill for Obama.
    ——————————————————————-
    Obama’s Summitry Buffoonery

    By Larry Johnson on April 13, 2010 at 9:19 PM in Current Affairs

    If this ain’t a case of a King with no clothes I don’t know what is. After assembling the leaders of 47 nations from around the globe, Barack Obama presided over a cotton candy summit focused primarily on the threat of nuclear terrorism and, as I predicted two days ago, ended up with NOTHING!! BUPKIS!! ZILCH!!

    Someone needs to tell this child masquerading in a man’s body that he is not the Andy Hardy President–”Hey kids, let’s put on a show.” What next? A global summit to condemn pedophilia or celebrate motherhood? Can’t wait for the apple pie summit.

    Folks, you did not have to be an experienced intelligence analyst to see that this was a turd sliding down the poop chute. Hell no.

    Obama is really clueless. He gets the Olympics shoved up his ass in Copenhagen Then he goes back to Copengan to lay an egg at the Global Summit on Climate Warming. Achieving what? Nothing. Nada. Zero. And now this.

    Even Dana Milbank, who pops major wood for Barack Obama, noted with dismay:

    World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

    They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.

    In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

    The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama’s eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: “I’m going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session.”

    Reporters for foreign outlets, admitted for the first time to the White House press pool, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they’re cracked up to be.

    Poor Dana. His dream date turned out to be a dud.

    Jake Tapper, to his continuing credit, was not afraid to ask some tough questions. And here is little Barack celebrating doing his touchdown dance even though he still has not scored any damn points:

    When asked by ABC News just what specific actions Chinese President Hu Jintao had committed to him regarding sanctions – White House officials said Monday that President Hu had agreed in principle to sanctions — President Obama said only: “Here’s what I know. The Chinese have sent official representatives to negotiations in New York, to begin the process of drafting a sanctions resolution. “

    The president said he wanted to see the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the US, China, UK, Russia and France – “move forward boldly and quickly, to send the kind of message that will allow Iran to make a different calculation.”

    Mr. Obama allowed that China, as a major importer of oil from Iran, is “obviously concerned about what ramifications this might have on the economy generally… But what I said to President Hu and what I’ve said to every world leader that I’ve talked to is that words have to mean something. There have to be some consequences. “

    Seeming to applaud his efforts at international diplomacy, the president said “if you consider where we were, say, a year ago, with respect to the prospect of sanctions, the fact that we’ve got Russia and China” along with France, the UK, and Germany – “having a serious discussion around a sanctions regime — following up on a serious sanctions regime that was passed when North Korea flouted its obligations towards the NPT” – the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty – “it’s a sign of the degree to which international diplomacy is making it more possible for us to isolate those countries that are breaking their international obligations.”

    No wonder this country is in trouble. We are led by a buffoon who has deluded himself in believing that the Chinese and Russians are going to back meaningful sanctions on Iran. This is Barack’s encore to his Global Warming disaster. Let’s be very clear–THE KING IS WEARING NO CLOTHES. HE IS BUTT ASS NAKED.

  26. Everything in its proper context.

    1. After the collapse of the global warming conference, AP rushed to press with an anxious message that Obama had achieved a meaningful commitment to revisit the issue at some undisclosed future date.

    2. Obama did a Rezko deal with big business on health care. Their lobbyist wrote the bill. Thugs in congress pushed it through over the strenuous objections of the American People. Obama claimed credit for that effort, and told everyone they would like it.

    3. Obama met with China and they have agreed to let their currency rise. He takes credit for something they needed to do anyway.

    4. Obama met with Russia and signed a treaty which obligates the United States to reduce its nuclear arsenal, and advantages Russia. Obama calls this a major step for mankind.

    5. Obama goes a step further in his dream for unilateral disarmament. He tells rogue nations who would launch a biological attack against the United States that he would never launch a nuclear attack against them. Subordinates then come out in an attempt to do damage control, but the adversaries know Obama is weak and Obama is president.

    6. Obama meets with the nations of the world and proclaims meaningful progress on Iran. He admits that China has an economic interest in Iranian Oil without which their economy will falter. However he tells us that he has achieved a milestone because they now agree that words along are not enough, and looks forward to some future date when they will put their economy in jeopardy with meaningful sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile Iran buys more time and builds nuclear weapons.

    7. Obama seeks to undermine our closest ally in the world by manipulating their internal politics, siding with the Arab nations and disrespecting their Prime Minister, who is a far greater leader than Obama will ever be.

    Question: is this what you might call a successful foreign policy? A successful presidency. Big media and half the country think so. They love him with a love that is more than a love. I guess I must be in the other half.

  27. The bots are still after Sarah!This is sooo ridiculous!
    ——————————————————-
    And that is what makes the bots terrible strategists. Nothing they could do will so energize Sarah and her base than for them to continue these attacks, unless it is having Obama weigh in as well. As FDR said: “I do not care what they say about me. Just spell the name right.”

  28. Big time Obama supporten Koch changes his tune-a little too late imo:
    ——————————-
    I have changed my mind on this. The moment of opportunity has passed. It really does not matter what Ed says now. I am serious. It is too late.

  29. More evidence of ugly latent racism. This time it comes from Krauthammer. He deplores what the stupid half of the country craves and adores about their savior Obama. His blissful naivete.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Nuclear posturing, Obama-style

    TOOLBOX

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, April 9, 2010
    Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

    THIS STORY
    Nuclear posturing, Obama-style

    During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye, Moscow.

    Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one’s ever been there. No one’s ever had to make such decisions. A nuclear posture is just that — a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.

    Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That’s why nuclear doctrine is important.

    The Obama administration has just issued a new one that “includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,” said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

    Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

    Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.

    Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”

    Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

    However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT-noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

    This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

    Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the United States without fear of nuclear retaliation?

    The naivete is stunning. Similarly the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads, indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes.

    THIS STORY
    Nuclear posturing, Obama-style
    A useful new START
    Ann Telnaes: Palin’s jab at Obama
    On the contrary. The last quarter-century — the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction — is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons (and India and Pakistan became declared nuclear powers).

    It gets worse. The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.” The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.

    This is deeply worrying to many small nations that for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture — and for them it’s not posture, but existential protection — what are they to think?

    Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?

    This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downgrading our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation.

    But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have forgone the acquisition of deterrent forces — nuclear, biological and chemical — precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power and reliability of the American deterrent.

    Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyper-proliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

    letters@charleskrauthammer.com

  30. Admin
    [snip]
    I guess, I’m having trouble processing the above statement enough to understand what Grassley ’s intent is….What does he mean? If his initial statement stands alone as what he truly believes; is he suggesting the language in the above quote was incorrectly written and should be corrected noting, “political leaders” need not be included in the final version of the laws they pass for everyone else?
    ——
    Glad to hear I’m not the only one that is scratching their head after reading this article by the ObotNYTimes.

    Maybe this article will make things a little clearer as to why it doesn’t make sense:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/grassley-look-how-great-this-health-care-bill-is.php

    Grassley: Look How Great This Health Care Bill Is
    March 24, 2010

    [snip]

    Grassley has been among the most vocal opponents of Democratic reform over the past year, but he’s also known as one of the biggest flip-floppers on the issue.

    At the start of the process, Grassley was expected to be among those Senators working to craft a bipartisan bill. But it wasn’t long before he abandoned that effort, and helped to start the “death panel” meme heard at town halls across the country throughout last summer.

    Later on, Grassley joined with the Republicans in condemning the bill’s medicare provisions. He jumped through several rhetorical hoops when he tried to explain his position in support Medicare while also attacking the idea of a public option last September.

    “Medicare is part of the social fabric of America,” he said. “And I think there’s a lot wrong with it.”

    Now, Grassley seems to be jumping through the same hoops after the bill has been signed, talking up the changes reforms he once said will allow the government to “decide when to pull the plug on Grandma” are making to the health care system.

    [snip]

    ———-
    He was part of the panel before he changed his mind and maybe his flip-flopping wasn’t ‘scrubbed’ from the bill before it was rushed off for a arm twisting vote.

    At least Nasty was correct in saying, “We have to pass the bill before we know what is in it.”

    Ya got what ya paid for Nasty!!

  31. Want more proof that Tapper does NOT ask Obama “tough” questions. This comment appeared at No Quarter:

    carol haka
    Charles K. tonight said that China made an announcement from the mother land nothing’s happening.

    carol haka
    That would be: they ain’t agreeing with anything.

  32. Been so busy last few weeks that I’m dancing as fast as I can to catch up on h-is-44 and have yet to study my way through the data in admin’s latest, but the previous article is still sparking in the back of my mind, so I just have to have my say on it.

    ADMIN: Terror from the Stalinist Left:
    …Paul Ryan, a legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “And there’s a reason they do it: they know voters don’t like outsiders coming in to sway the vote.”
    ——————————
    If that were true, the Tea Party would not have been welcomed to campaign for Brown in MA, but we all worked together – even local SEIU members.

    Seems to me those Tea Party demonstrations would be much larger if people could spare time from their jobs to attend. Of course, as more and more of us are out of a job, more of us will be free to join the protests.

    Does it matter what the Obama thugs say about us? I hear praise for the Tea Party everyday – from carpenters, hair dressers, fishermen, small business owners, seniors, electricians, plumbers, nurses, landscapers, cooks, bartenders, etc. We view the Tea Party as our own. To slander The Tea Party is to slander the people. You can tear down a public figure, but you cannot tear down the people because the people are as durable as the land, and they side with their own.

    And by the way, you cannot wear the face of the people if you are not one of us. You cannot fake our inner voice. What you wear or how often you address us as “folks” or “friends” won’t help you. And why do you always think we are uneducated? Schooling varies hugely among us and we carry varying degrees of refinement, but we know our own. That’s why we love HiIl and Bill, and Sarah Palin. Every attack on them, even the slightest slur or deprecatory innuendo, raises our hackles against those who’ve lost that touchstone of sanity which knows the real from the fake.

    So, let all the BOTS do their damnedest. They are not one of us and we know it. Their efforts only make us more fervent, more determined, more united and better able to define who we are.

  33. Source: State Dems scrambling to deploy tea party ‘crashers’

    April 14, 2010 by Shawn Millerick

    Filed under News & Politics

    New Hampshire Democrats are engaged in a statewide search for liberal activists willing to attend so-called tea parties on Thursday and carry signs expressing racist or fringe sentiments, a Democratic source with knowledge of the effort tells NowHampshire.com.

    According to the source, who sought anonymity for fear of reprisals, the Dems’ last minute scramble reflects a growing obsession among party leaders that they need to discredit the tea party movement soon or it will overwhelm them come the November election.

    Former Democratic State Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan is heading up the search, the source said. Sullivan has been calling and e-mailing liberal activists trying to get them to attend tea parties in different parts of the state and hold signs denying the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate and make racially disparaging comments to reporters.

    “This is Kathy’s [Sullivan] project,” the source told NowHampshire.com. “She is absolutely obsessed with painting the tea party people as racists.”

    Similar “crash the tea party” efforts are taking place throughout the country on Tax Day.

    If she pulls it off, this won’t be the first time Sullivan has endeavored to manufacture a racist controversy regarding the tea party movement. Last month Sullivan and other Democratic leaders attempted to portray a “white pride” rally in Concord held by a Massachusetts-based white supremacist organization as a tea party. Sullivan was forced to retract her bogus accusation.

    Nor would this maneuver be a radical departure from other stunts the party has engaged in recently. Around Easter the Democrats sent someone dressed in a bunny costume to the Republican State Committee headquarters. The stunt was widely panned, though thinly covered, and some internet wags speculated Sullivan herself was inside the suit (see below and judge for yourself.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux3lclsYIR0&feature=player_embedded

    Sullivan has also been making herself a bit of a nuisance in Manchester. She has been attending meetings of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen to glower at Mayor Ted Gatsas.

  34. wbboei, success will be spelled M-A-D-A-M P-R-E-S-I-D-E-N-T

    I could not have said it better lil ole grape 12:29pm

  35. MORE ON INFILTRATION OF THE TEA PARTY

    Those on the Left who are willing to do “anything” to disrupt the Tea Party should ask themselves:

    “Do I believe in the Constitution?”
    “What am I fighting for?”
    “Am I using totatitarian tactics in order to achieve Democracy?”

    tampabay.com/incoming/foes-of-tea-party-movement-to-infiltrate-rallies/1087006

    Foes of tea party movement to infiltrate rallies
    ==================

    Associated Press
    In Print: Tuesday, April 13, 2010

    ALBANY, N.Y. — Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic.

    Jason Levin, creator of crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events on Thursday — tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.

    “Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn’t an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, ‘That’s right, he’s an alien from outer space!’ ” he said.

    Tea party members said the backlash comes from ignorance. “They can’t actually debate our message, and that’s their problem,” said Bob MacGuffie, a Connecticut organizer for Right Principles, a tea party group that also has members in New York and New Jersey.

    The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that, the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically.

    Levin says they want to exaggerate the group’s least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. “Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not,” he said.

    The site manifesto says members want to dismantle the tea party by nonviolent means. “We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies,” the site said.

    Another tea party organizer said the attempt to destroy the movement was evidence its message is resonating.

    “We’ve been ignored, we’ve been ridiculed. Well, now they’re coming after us,” said Judy Pepenella, a co-coordinator for the New York State Tea Party. “Gandhi’s quote is one we understand: ‘First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.’ “

  36. Hell ya!!!

    Hot off the presses of the ObotLATimes:

    Red flag for a sinking Obama: Americans now prefer Hillary Clinton

    (Long but worth it…)

    It is, of course, a really silly thing to even think about, given the clout of the Chicago Machine boys currently occupying the White House.

    But, just say, the Real Great Talker continues his spiraling descent in the polls over the next 12-18 months; already the Democrat is barely tied with Any Republican in opinion polls looking toward 2012.

    Even worse, a majority of Americans have already decided they don’t want Obama to have a second term. (Let’s all cheer out!)

    And just say under Obama’s leadership and insistence on his unpopular healthcare bill over jobs, all the spending and exploding deficits, plus the certainty of new taxes to cover his costs, the Democrats in Congress get thoroughly thrashed by the GOP come November. Maybe they even lose control of both houses.

    This week a new poll showed Americans now preferring the GOP on a generic congressional ballot. And despite eagerly optimistic recent administration economic claims, the unemployment rate is likely to hang high, and now comes a new ABC News Poll finding national consumer confidence actually waning, not building.

    Do you think then maybe by a year from now some Democratic Party bigwigs and money people might be whispering to each other that this arrogant Illinois guy is pulling a Jimmy Carter, constructing a disastrous….

    …single term that teed up 12 straight years of Republican White House rule?

    Well, it turns out, there is another Democrat — another former senator, in fact — hanging around now free of political tussles with an enhanced resume burnished on the world stage, thanks to Obama himself.

    And a new CNN/Opinion Research Poll has just revealed that even today Americans like that other Democrat more and dislike that other Democrat less than they do the incumbent Democratic president.

    That other Democrat is, of course, Hillary Clinton, who fought and scratched her way mightily but unsuccessfully (Bullshit,she won!) through those bitter, belligerent Democratic primaries and caucuses of 2008. The former first lady and current secretary of State professes no intra-mural interest in challenging her White House boss, as she must as long as she’s an administration team member.

    The published CNN article focused on an Obama matchup with Sarah Palin. But within the data were Favorable/Unfavorable ratings for numerous prominent politicians of both parties. Here are the surprising new poll numbers for Clinton:

    61% now think favorably of the former senator and only 35% unfavorably, both numbers improved from the 56% and 40% she had during the Democratic National Convention in late August of 2008.
    An early 2012 political button

    It is, on one level, an impressive turnaround for the once polarizing political figure. (Bullshit!)

    And on another level it’s a comment on the polarity of the political climate presided over by someone who promised to bring people together and change Washington’s harsh partisan tone, another postponed campaign vow like eliminating Guantanamo and “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell.”

    By comparison, in the same CNN poll, 57% of Americans now think favorably of Obama, down from 78% just before his inauguration; and 41% now think unfavorably of him, more than twice his unfavorable rating of early 2009.

    Clinton’s numbers also beat all other both Democrats and Republicans in the new poll.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 38-50 Favorable-Unfavorable; Sen. Harry Reid 28-35. The good news for Reid is that 20% of Americans have never heard of him; the bad news is Nevadans know him well and have him trailing any conceivable Republican candidate in this November’s election.

    Among Republican names, Mike Huckabee’s favorable-unfavorable rating is 43-29; Mitt Romney 40-34; Newt Gingrich 38-38 (see his recent speech video here); and Sarah Palin 39-55, up from her other recent numbers. See Palin’s recent speech video right here.

    Loyal Ticket readers may remember this item of ours from last December when USA Today and Gallup found the two most admired females in America were Clinton and Palin — and only 1% separated them.

    Even more loyal Ticket readers will recall our item from nearly two years ago here revealing that the day after she surrendered to Obama upon losing the party primary race and said she heartily supported him, Clinton associates purchased a Web domain name: HRC2012.

    Probably just an over-eager staffer, wouldn’t you think?

  37. Rove is coming to Round Rock TX for his book. I may go just to tell him that Fox needs to lighten up on Hillary. We Hillary supporters have flocked to the station leaving the GOTV to support them and their ratings, we voted for Sarah and John, joined Tea party’s, and they can change their dynamics if they see the light.

  38. gonzotx
    April 14th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Rove is coming to Round Rock TX for his book. I may go just to tell him that Fox needs to lighten up on Hillary. We Hillary supporters have flocked to the station leaving the GOTV to support them and their ratings, we voted for Sarah and John, joined Tea party’s, and they can change their dynamics if they see the light.
    ——
    I hope you do, I agree with you and over the past couple of weeks I have been wondering why I watch Fox, except for Greta.
    Hannity has even started thumping on Hillary more than usual and it really makes me angry.

  39. Hey Shadowfax!

    I agree. I have been feeling turned off by Fox as well. Time to write some emails regarding the HRC thumping.

    Guess I will wear my HRC t-shirt to the Tea Party tomorrow!

  40. Hey andersen, represent for me too at the t-party.

    I have found myself upset with Fox since the Fraud has tanked in the polls and Brown won, they seem to lick their chops over the White House too much for my taste.

  41. Shadow,

    I wish we could head out to the Tea Party together. I remember our last excursion in WC! LOL!

    Fox needs to re-think their approach to the Tea Party folks. They are leaving out the huge amount of people who are disenfranchised Dems and those who jumped to Independent.
    They are losing out on all the input from us folks!

  42. Admin
    More scams and publicity stunts are on their way:

    “The president will stump the country talking about government’s eagerness to force insurance companies to get rid of pre-existing conditions as an obstacle to getting health coverage. He will highlight Medicare rebates. He will tout ending the closing of the federal drug benefits’ “doughnut hole” for seniors.
    ———–

    My hope is that the Fraud wastes most of his time stumping for Dems that are going to be kicked out of office in November, (we all know how well that works) doesn’t have time to pass any of his wacko policies, then when the House is lost to the Dems, he is one lame duck until we send him packing back to Chicago.
    Move him out and move in Hillary.

  43. I don’t think Fox cares at this point about the disenfranchised Dems, their ratings are up, MSM is down and they are getting all tingly about the dream of winning back the White House in 2012.

    They will only care if their ratings decline when us PUMAs start bailing out on them. Greta’s ratings will remain high and maybe they will get the hint?

  44. Admin: I want to commend you on the wonderful titles to your articles. Titles like “For Once Congress Screws Itself”, “Not Just April Fools”, etc.

    True wit is nature to advantage dressed
    What oft was thought but ne’r so well expressed.–Alexander Pope

  45. Fox News is run by a GOP operative. They are never going to support Hillary – ever. Her very policies supporting average people over the wealthy are an anethema to the elite that the GOP caters too. They’ll play up the fractures in the Democratic party and then they’ll support Romney or Palin or whatever hairball the GOP coughs up.

  46. SQUID PRO QUO?? MORE SHENANIGANS FROM WASCALLY PWESIDENT

    I’m no “union buster”, but this looks like a return favor for past support (2008) and the purchasing of future support (2010 and 2012).

    foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/14/construction-groups-decry-obamas-new-union-friendly-policy-federal-projects/

    Construction Groups Decry Obama’s New Union Friendly Policy for Federal Projects
    ==========================

    FOXNews.com

    Advocates for the recession-battered construction industry are lining up to challenge President Obama’s new policy backing the use of union labor for large-scale federal construction projects.
    &&&&&&&&&&

    Advocates for the recession-battered construction industry are lining up to challenge President Obama’s new policy backing the use of union labor for large-scale federal construction projects.

    The policy, which went into effect Tuesday, encourages federal agencies to have construction contractors and subcontractors enter project labor agreements (PLAs) for all construction projects larger than $25 million. Those agreements require contractors to negotiate with union officials, recognize union wages and benefits and generally abide by collective-bargaining agreements.

    Opponents of the policy are calling it a payoff to unions. They say it will unfairly steer federal construction contracts to unions even though the bulk of U.S. construction workers are not unionized.

    “Anti-competitive project labor agreements are special interest kickback schemes that end open, fair and competitive bidding on public projects,” Jim Elmer, national chairman of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., said in a written statement. “Government-mandated PLAs are a handout to a politically connected special interest group and come at the taxpayers’ expense.”

    Elmer said the agreements can drive up the cost for public construction by nearly 20 percent while “unfairly discriminating against the more than 85 percent of the U.S. construction workforce that chooses not to join a union.”

    “With the construction industry facing a staggering unemployment rate of 25 percent, this is the worst possible time for politics to trump sound public policy,” he said. “This final rule shows that the Obama administration is more concerned with paying back its political allies than putting American’s entire construction workforce back to work.”

    But Labor Secretary Hilda Solis called the policy a “win-win” situation.

    “They benefit businesses, workers and taxpayers. I’ve seen the track record in cities like Los Angeles — high-quality work on projects done on time, on budget and good job and training opportunities that strengthen our communities,” she said in a written statement.

    Mark Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department praised the policy.

    “Contrary to claims by those who oppose these agreements — who subscribe to a ‘race to the bottom’ mentality, where success is predicated on the ability to assemble a low-wage, easily exploitable workforce — PLAs have proven over and over that they are a valuable, market-based tool that ensures superior job site management, project efficiencies and workforce productivity and development.”

    Obama’s policy restores a Clinton administration order that was revoked by President George W. Bush. Obama quietly signed the executive order last year, just days after taking office. The order went into effect Tuesday.

    The Associated General Contractors of America, a construction industry advocate, expressed appreciation that the rules did not retroactively impose agreements on contracts that have already been awarded. But the group still dismissed the rules as “costly and counterproductive.”

    “We continue to strongly oppose any effort by government officials, who often have little or no experience in construction labor relations, to undermine existing relationships between contractors and construction workers by imposing project labor agreements,” Stephen E. Sandherr, the associations’ chief executive officer, said in a statement.

    “Any comprehensive review of existing construction worker benefits and current federal contracting guidelines will prove that government-mandated labor agreements are as unnecessary as they are costly and counterproductive,” he said.

    “That is why we will continue to encourage agency officials to exercise the broad latitude provided by these rules to avoid imposing these agreements.”

    Republicans called the policy a “job-killing” move.

    “Project Labor Agreements reduce competition, increase costs for taxpayers, and add layers of bureaucracy and red tape to federal construction projects,” Rep. John Kline, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said in a written statement. “Creating a formal federal process for imposing these Depression-era mandates on construction projects may be a win for special interests, but it’s a loss for workers, taxpayers, and small businesses hoping to compete for federal jobs.”

    “The likely consequence of this new federal regulation will be higher costs for taxpayers and far less competition among job creators trying to get the American economy back on track,” the Minnesota Republican said.

  47. MORE STATE RESISTANCE TO THE BAD HEALTH SCARE BILL

    nytimes.com/2010/04/14/health/policy/14georgia.html

    Georgia Insurance Commissioner Balks at Request on New Health Law
    ================

    By ROBBIE BROWN
    Published: April 13, 2010

    ATLANTA — The insurance commissioner of Georgia has chosen not to comply with a federal request to create a state pool for high-risk insurance plans, opening a new front in the resistance by state Republican officials to the new federal health care law.

    The commissioner, John W. Oxendine, who is a Republican candidate for governor, appears to be one of the first politicians in the country to take that stance. His decision will not affect the cost of insurance for any patients, but it means that the federal government, not the state, will oversee the distribution of certain federal health care funds in Georgia.

    Nineteen state attorneys general — nearly all Republicans — are filing lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. The issue has been especially contentious in Georgia. After the state attorney general, a Democrat, called the lawsuits a waste of taxpayer money, Republican lawmakers here drafted a petition calling for his impeachment, and the Republican governor appointed a “special attorney general,” a private lawyer, specifically to file a lawsuit on the state’s behalf.

    Mr. Oxendine, in a letter Monday to Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said he could not allow Georgia to join “a scheme which I believe the Supreme Court will hold to be unconstitutional, leads to the further expansion of the federal government, undermines the financial security of our nation, and potentially commits the State of Georgia to future financial obligations.”

    In an interview, Mr. Oxendine said he had spoken to at least two governors and one insurance commissioner from other states who were considering taking the same stance, although he would not say which states.

    This month, Ms. Sebelius had asked the governors and elected insurance commissioners of every state to decide by April 30 whether, and how, to create the insurance pools. Under the health care law, a total of $5 billion in federal money will be allocated to reduce the costs of insurance premiums for high-risk patients by the end of 2013.

    A spokesman for Ms. Sebelius, Nicholas Papas, said the decision by Mr. Oxendine would not affect the premiums that any Georgians pay.

    “For too long, Georgians with pre-existing conditions have been locked out of the insurance market,” Mr. Papas said in a statement. “If state officials in Georgia elect not to participate in the high-risk pool program, our department will work to ensure Georgians with pre-existing conditions have access to affordable insurance through the federal high-risk pool program that we will establish this year.”

    Mr. Oxendine said his opposition to the pool program was legal and financial, not politically motivated. But some political experts noted that any stance against the federal health care law could help him in the crowded Republican primary race for governor in July.

    “I suspect the decision was heavily influenced by politics,” said Charles Bullock, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia. “The electorate here is hostile to Barack Obama and health care reform.”

    Mr. Oxendine’s decision is not necessarily the final word on whether Georgia will create the insurance pool. Bert Brantley, a spokesman for Gov. Sonny Perdue, said the governor’s office would also issue a response to Ms. Sebelius, but agreed with Mr. Oxendine’s arguments against the pool.

  48. Anderson and ShadowFax, I wish you two a good time at the tea party in DC tomorrow and am glad your wearing your Hillary shirts…I wish I was there!

  49. confloyd
    Neither of us will be at a tea party in DC.
    Anderson is in another state, I am in Calif and will only attend a small group after I get off of work.

    Not exactly the big drama, but anywhere I can wear my Hillary t-shirt and raise Hell against the Fraud is rewarding. 🙂

  50. Sorry, rgb44hrc
    April 14th, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    IT’S NOT A “NEW” POLICY! And, I would remind you, Obama insisted the stimulus not have a “buy American” provision. But, as far as federal construction, hell no, it’s no new policy. From your own citation: “Obama’s policy restores a Clinton administration order that was revoked by President George W. Bush. Obama quietly signed the executive order last year, just days after taking office. The order went into effect Tuesday.”

    Get that? It’s the restoration of a Bill Clinton policy.

  51. basement angel
    April 14th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Well, no kidding. Fox News absolutely hates Hillary, and no one should kid themselves, they would much rather have the inept Obama in office to the competent Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

  52. Shadowfax
    April 14th, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Thanks for posting the info on Grassley’s… Kerryesque, “was for it before he was against it” quote. It will be interesting watching him squirm his way out of it with his choice of an unimpressive lame excuse.

  53. mj

    Well, no kidding. Fox News absolutely hates Hillary, and no one should kid themselves, they would much rather have the inept Obama in office to the competent Hillary Clinton any day of the week.
    ——
    Yup, and that is because the inept Fraud is easier to beat in an election, they are scared sh!tless of Hillary’s appeal to a broad range of Americans.

    Fox’s ratings will drop off the more they attack Hillary, her supporters are the only reason their ratings grew after the primary.

  54. Mrs. Smith

    Thanks for posting the info on Grassley’s… Kerryesque, “was for it before he was against it” quote. It will be interesting watching him squirm his way out of it with his choice of an unimpressive lame excuse.
    ——-
    Not only that, but it sure makes the Dems look like fools for gathering files of paper off the shelves and tossing in everything including the kitchen sink, before the vote. They probably thought, better to include everything and then just vote to delete the bad parts out later. They never thought they would xxxx themselves in the process.

  55. Big media wants us to believe that their legions represent all walks of American life–men, women, gays, straights, handicapped, etc. Therefore the product they produce is a priori inclusive of all interests and should be treated with great deference for that reason. To that I say bullshit. The people they put forward are shills for the elites, and they are co-conspirators in the grand scheme to disenfranchise the middle class. For all their alleged diversity, where are the middle class representatives on those panels? There are none. They are just wealth Washington insiders. They hate the tea parties because the tea parties represent a threat to their hegemony. And that tells you why the country should pay no attention to what these big media shills say. It is larded with self interest. Krauthammer is the rare exception that proves the rule.

  56. Well, how is everyone, sorry ain’t been posting in a while, not long back from India, have had a lovely ear infection, nose infection, throat infection, hernia and a frozen shoulder for 2 weeks, frankly i feel like shit.

    Trying now to catch up as I have not been in the mood for anything this last while, hope you are all well, back to posting soon.

    I still see its all going to hell in a handbasket with dumbass in charge.

  57. nomobama
    April 14th, 2010 at 6:20 am
    I like to make a suggestion about the pictures found under “Barack Obama Is The Third Bush Term”. I think a series of pictures of Barack Obama morphing into Jimmy Carter may be more appropriate.
    ________________________________________________________________________

    why not be done with it and have BO morph into the horses-ass that he is?

  58. Rgb: did you see how they tried to slip a phony poll number into that article?

    “CNN poll, 57% of Americans now think favorably of Obama”
    ————————————–

    1. that number is hyperinflated

    2. 50% of voters SOMEWHAT APPROVE of Obama. (Rassmussen 4/14/10).

    3. This is the highest approval rating for him in 2 months.

    4. 40% strongly disapprove, 38% strongly approve= -8 rating (ibid 2.)

    5. This the key metric. These are the influencers.

    6. So where did CNN do its unscientific sampling to come with 57% approval.

    a. Cambell Brown’s lurid imagination?

    b. White House staff?

    c. Obama’s extended family?

    d. all of the above?

    e. (correct answer: d.)

    7. And what is their MOE?

    a. 10 points?

    b. 20 points?

    c. whatever AOL Time Warner tells them?

    d. (correct answer: d.)

  59. I wonder if the RBO is run/owned by the same person as it used to be?? I never noticed a name of the author at the beginning of the article? Does anyone know?

    Lots of news on Hillary today on facebook, lots of fans out there commenting!

  60. Admin: Have you heard anything about the records being opened to the public in regard to the Blago trial?

  61. 6. So where did CNN do its unscientific sampling to come with 57% approval.
    *************

    1% from each of the 57 states of course!

  62. moom

    just go to the hospital and tell them your there for some of that free fraudcare…hope u r feeling better soon

  63. OMG. 32% strongly approve of Obama. Not 38%.

    I guess we all have a margin of error. Mine increases exponentially just thinking about CNN.

  64. 2. 50% of voters SOMEWHAT APPROVE of Obama. (Rassmussen 4/14/10).
    ————–
    I would like to know what qualifies as ‘somewhat’ approves.

    I approve of the Fraud at .000000000001 % for picking Hillary as the SOS so she can ‘represent’ for us and be the only hard working adult in the O’administration.

  65. confloyd

    I suggest everyone reads Lamecherry before he changes his article.
    ————
    Link please.

  66. Very interesting perspective from Lame Cherry, I hope the trial is televised.
    It will be better than watching the OJ trial.

  67. Wbboei, besides the fact Obama is a raging anti-Semite, he intentionally created this huge rift with Israel making it more likely than not that Iran will get it’s nuclear weapon(s). When Iran,Syria, Hamas, Hizbollah and others attack Israel, Israel will be unable to survive absent their use of nuclear weapons. Obama has created the conditions for a nuclear war while holding this farce of a meeting the last two (2) days .

  68. Basement angel, it mist frost your cookies when you realize that Fox, the organization that caters to all those rich people, has a large audience that is hardly rich. Class warfare is all the Democrats have in their arsenal anymore, and although it works every now and then, it’s not going to work in 2010, 2012, nor the foreseeable future. The Republicans may cough up hairballs, but the Democrats lay the turds.

  69. Lamecherry is an unusual blog with opinions expressed in an unusual way. I can’t say that I always agree with the blog owner, but his/her views are thoughtful, but sometimes a little difficult to follow.

Comments are closed.