In the following clip from Bill Maher's Real Time on HBO, you can see the left's unvarnished attitude toward the Tea Party Movement:
I wonder if Rob Reiner saw the ugliness of his arrogance when he watched the playback of the video.
Would YOU like to have an after-dinner discussion with any of those in the video, particularly with Rob Reiner? His arrogance is disgusting. Worse, the audience loved it.
From this source quoting James J. Lee, who invaded the Discovery Channel's building today in Silver Spring Maryland, fired shots, and held hostages until the police shot him:
"Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”
Of course, many of the above facts were available to the electorate before the November 2008 National Elections. But the mainstream media would not disseminate those facts; as a result, a large portion of the electorate remained unaware of the truth about the man they voted for.
Can the media do the same for the 2012 National Election? If they continue the stonewalling and obfuscation, BHO will be elected again.
On April 15 (Ah! The irony!), BHO voiced his amusement with regard to the Tea Parties. Of course, his arrogant and condescending amusement is nothing more than another manifestation of his growing megalomania. He topped off his comment about amusing (a humorous quip in his own mind) with the outrageous statement that Tea Partiers should be thanking him:
Feed Your ADHD offers this must-read rebuttal to and reality check about BHO. Excerpt:
For more than a year now we've stood in the rain and the cold and the heat and in hostile circumstances and on street corners and at rural crossroads and outside local and state and federal buildings, protesting a sorry excuse for a president and his merry band of Congresscriminals.
First HE had us labeled as domestic terrorists, then he didn’t know we existed, then HE called us teabaggers, then HE acknowledged his destiny to be a one-term president -- and now HE is "amused" by us.
HE is amused by us? We are the reason Arlen Sphincter turned tail and joined his natural-born party when the backlash over his support of Zero’s $787 billion turtle tunnel bill threatened his re-election as a Republican, and we are now the reason Sphincter won’t even come close to winning his seat back against upstart Pat Toomey. We are the reason Scott Brown now sits in a seat formerly occupied for nearly half a century by a fat cretinous murdering drunkard whoring Democrat thief, the reason dirty Creigh Deeds was done in dirt cheap (a saying admittedly stolen from Pat Dollard), the reason New Jersey now has Gov. Chris Christie to rightfully gut it’s bloated government and eventually return power to the taxpayer, the reason sitting RINO Florida Gov. Charlie Crist >will have to run as a Democrat-lite (an independent) to even have a chance at winning his battle to become a U.S. senator.
HE is amused by us? We’re the reason it took so long for HIM to get his precious signature – and likely final – achievement accomplished: Obamacare....
Read the entire essay. Bookmark it so as to read it at least once a month. Keep your anger boiling so as to overturn this asinine Congress in November and vote out BHO in 2012!
(Note: This is a long post as it is a bit of a round up)
I've been telling some of my non-blogging readers and friends about the following two videos, to gasps of incredulity and am posting the material in this post "for the record":
So, should we sign a contract without reading it? Come on! The first thing most of us learn about signing papers laid before us: "Read before you sign!" Yet, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi uttered words that have to rank up there with the craziest political statements ever. I call for her to be brought up on charges of political malpractice. Information about political malpractice HERE; please take a moment to read the link.
The second video, quite an admission, and additional material are below the fold:
And who can forget the following statement?
As for the health-reform act itself, read the following from the March 23, 2010 New York Times (hat tip to THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS):
In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality
For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.
[...]
...This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate....
A reminder from a previous post here at Always On Watch:
In case you can't access the above audio, what Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Add it all up, and it should be clear to any thinking person what this administration is all about. Change, all right, with the hope being overturning the America as we know her.
Obama Espoused Radical Views in College Monday, February 8, 2010 09:42 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
As a college student, Barack Obama expressed Marxist views, including the need for a new socialist U.S. government, according to a student who says he shared the future president’s opinion at the time.
Such views by a college student may not be surprising. And like most students who hold radical views, Obama’s positions, at least publicly, have evolved substantially.
However, this new window on Obama’s youth and early political thinking demonstrates how little is known about the background of America’s 44th president.
Dr. John C. Drew, a grant writing consultant in Laguna Niguel, Calif., tells Newsmax he met Obama in 1980 when Obama was a sophomore at Occidental College in Los Angeles. Drew had just graduated from Occidental and was attending graduate school at Cornell University.
[...]
“He was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth,” says Drew, who says he himself was then a Marxist.
“The idea was basically that wealthy people were exploiting others,” Drew says. “That this was the secret of their wealth, that they weren’t paying others enough for their work, and they were using and taking advantage of other people. He was convinced that a revolution would take place, and it would be a good thing.”
Drew concluded that Obama thought of himself as “part of an intelligent, radical vanguard that was leading the way towards this revolution and towards this new society.”
[...]
As president, Obama has espoused the view that the rich are not sharing their wealth with the less fortunate. In a Sept. 6, 2001, radio interview, Obama expressed regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t engaged in wealth redistribution.
So, how much has BHO changed since advocating those views in college?
Reliapundit of THE ASTUTE BLOGGERSpoints out something else in the above-cited Newsmax article. From "WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING ABOUT HIS FRIENDSHIP WITH MOHAMMED CHANDOO?":
DREW INTERESTS ME BECAUSE OF THE LIGHT HE SHEDS ON OBAMA'S MUSLIM FRIEND, MOHAMMED CHANDOO.
[...]
...CHANDOO WAS [BHO's] BEST FRIEND IN COLLEGE; HE SPENT 3 WEEKS WITH HIM IN PAKISTAN.
This morning, I stumbled to the coffee pot, waited for the coffee to brew (seemed like forever), and turned on my local morning news, only to be "greeted" by a tirade by Michael Moore, promoting his new film Capitalism: A Love Story.
No, I haven't seen the film, nor do I plan to, but I might watch it when the DVD comes to NetFlix. Know thy enemy. ---------- I admit that I wasn't fully awake when regaled by Michael Moore. But what he said did sound as if he's fomenting revolution. Will anyone hold him accountable if he's doing so?
Just minutes after the Los Angeles premiere screening of Michael Moore's "Capitalism, A Love Story" ended, the filmmaker posted this message to his Twitter feed: "The packed house gets up to grab their torches and pitchforks..."
The article next states that Moore was just kidding, but goes on later to state the following:
His latest movie tries to tap into populist outrage from the left, at a time when that anger has been channeled much more visibly by the right. The outrage that we have seen, the town halls and the tea parties and the birthers, have been over the fear of big government, not that there won't be a safety net. "They are very good at it," he told me, adding that conservatives' ability to "own the bailout" is for "entirely different reasons from me." It is also one of the reasons he was so anxious to get his movie out.
[...]
Moore's most compelling "get" also acts as a rallying point to counter the right's ability to stir populist emotion. It is footage, long thought lost until Moore's production staff found it, of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 presenting what he called the "Second Bill of Rights," guaranteeing economic security via jobs with a living wage, medical care and a home. Roosevelt said: "Unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world." It's a well-timed, stirring moment, and as "Capitalism" is released Moore no doubt will be one of the message's most formidable champions.
Below is the YouTube audio excerpt from FDR's Fireside Chat of January 11, 1944:
Until BHO took office, FDR was the reddest President America has ever had. No wonder that Michael Moore is taking his talking points from that source! Furthermore, Moore apparently doesn't hesitate to advocate violence to achieve both publicity for his new film and his goal of changing America into Amerika.
Most of us on the right sneer at Michael Moore and his blatant propaganda. Young people in high school and college, however, drink up the ideology he promotes, sucking down the Kool-aid in huge gulps.
Note to readers and family: Updates on Mr. AOW's progress are HERE.
Something very like this from CNBC's John Harwood as he and the show anchor we discussing that parents shouldn't be concerned about BHO's upcoming national address to schoolchildren on September 8:
"Parents who object to the President speaking to schoolchildren aren't able to raise their children very effectively."
This is what the majority of Americans accept as news and words from an expert?
1. The mainstream media will not say anything negative about BHO's power grab and appointees. See Epa's post at Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
2. Having concerns about "The One" means that you are an unfit parent.
MyBarackObama.com: Dissenters To BHO's Plans Are "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists"
Much of the following video is about BHO's upcoming national address to schoolchildren. But there is another element too. Listen and watch, particularly at time marker :55-1:10. Also note that right-wingers have been deemed "the heirs of Bin Laden," at time marker 1:40-1:43.
Not a surprise that the right is being demonized. Didn't I post this less than a month ago?
You might ask, "Which idiocy?" After all, there are SO MANY IDIOCIES to choose for discussion these days.
Well, instead of posting about BHO (several of those posts below this one), I've chosen the following short video, one about the new euphemisms in our nation's textbooks (hat tip to Weasel Zippers):
The book The Trouble with Textbooks is available at Amazon. If you have children or grandchildren still in school or if you are a teacher, you might want to buy your own copy and start checking the, ahem, new terminology.
This is one of my longer posts, so settle in for a lengthy read as I connect the dots. This post will stay here several days as I have a busy week ahead.
(graphic courtesy of GM's Place - disseminate freely)
Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
[...]
Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.
If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.
As one who always reads Pearlstein's columns, which typically often sound financial advice, I have to say that I'm astounded as the position he has taken in this essay.
Those with concerns about ObamaCare are "political terrorists"? Perhaps Pearlstein is a covert disciple of Cass Suntein and Zephyr Teachout. --------- On July 12, 2009, I posted the following about Cass Sunstein:
Based on his own words and statements of intent, Cass Sunstein, appointed to the shadowy post of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will likely have his eye on the Internet, particularly on us bloggers:
When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
[...]
Sunstein questions the current libel standard - which requires proving "actual malice" against those who write about public figures, including celebrities. Mere "negligence" isn't libelous, but Sunstein wonders, "Is it so important to provide breathing space for damaging falsehoods about entertainers?" Celeb rags, get ready to hire more lawyers.
Sunstein also believes that - whether you're a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be "a considerable burden."
[...]
"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.
He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsiness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.
Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.
Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.
Such suppression of First Amendment rights would be challenged in courts of law, of course. However, the article points out the following disturbing reality:
How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court....
Here is a some additional information about Cass Sunstein:
At the time of my July 2009 posting about Cass Suntein's plans, RaDena commented as follows:
They won't be able to do it, Always, because it will backfire on the far left. They spew more vitriol than anyone...They can't suppress only conservatives and as they can't do anything else except throw around insults they'd be affected by this much worse than you or I would. Americans are not going to tolerate that much of a double standard... at least I hope not!
Hmmmm.... And now we have the White House snitch program and all sorts of trouble at town halls (See recent posts at Gateway Pundit). How things have changed in less than a month from that posting about Sunstein! We shouldn't be surprised at change, of course: the Whitehouse.gov video, which supposedly "debunked" the idea that Obama is pro single-payer, came of out the White House Office of Information, headed by Cass Sunstein. How many of the other videos and documents coming out of the White House bear the mark of Sunstein? A lot of them, I'm sure.
Now, about Zephyr Teachout.
Back on May 31, 2009, I published a post entitled "Are BHO and Company Keeping a List?" at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
How long do we have before we lose the Internet?
I direct you to this column by George F. Will. Complete essay, which is quite long but important for us to discuss, I think:
For several decades, most of the ingenuity that liberal academics have invested in First Amendment analysis has aimed to justify limiting the core activity that the amendment was written to protect -- political speech. These analyses treat free speech as not an inherent good but as a merely instrumental good, something justified by serving other ends -- therefore something to be balanced against, and abridged to advance, other goods.
The good for which Zephyr Teachout would regulate speech is combating corruption, which, as she understands it, encompasses most of contemporary politics. A visiting law professor at Duke, writing in the Cornell Law Review ("The Anti-Corruption Principle"), she makesan astonishingly far-reaching argument for emancipating government from First Amendment restrictions on its powers to regulate political speech -- speech about the government's composition and conduct.
Hitherto, most arguments for such emancipation -- for McCain-Feingold and other measures regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech -- have rested on the supposed need to curb corruption or the "appearance" thereof, with corruption understood as quid pro quo transactions, political favors exchanged for financial favors. But bribery has long been criminalized, and courts are wary about allowing the criminalizing of the constant transactions of mutual support between politicians and factions.
Teachout's capacious definition of corruption includes even an unseemly "attitude" of citizens as well as officeholders "toward public service." She says that the Framers thought limiting corruption was their "primary task." Therefore the "anti-corruption principle" should have "as much weight" as the First Amendment, giving Congress considerable "leeway" to regulate the political "process," which is mostly speech. What Teachout disparagingly calls "the apotheosis of speech" and "the sanctified meme of 'free speech' " is, she says, "a serious problem" requiring a rethinking of "the proper relationship of speech to self-serving public actors."
She advocates, as proponents of an elastic Constitution often do, an "evolving standard," this time a standard about how we define, measure and condemn "self-serving" behavior, aka corruption. This standard might license Congress to restrict speech in order to combat:
"Unequal access" to the political process; "unfair deployment of wealth"; "undue influence" by this or that group; speech that is "distorting" or lacks "proportionality" or results in "drowned voices" or a "passive" or "dispirited" public or that causes a "loss of political integrity" or creates "moral failings for members of Congress." Such speech might not be constitutionally protected if we properly "refine the meaning of the privilege of political speech."
So, political speech is not a right but a privilege, something granted by governmentwhen government deems it consistent with what Teachout calls the "equally important" anti-corruption principle. Imagine the "self-serving" uses incumbent legislators might have for the terms in the paragraph above as reasons for restricting political speech.
The word "corruption" or some permutation of it occurs 58 times in the 85 essays that are the Federalist Papers. James Madison wrote not only many of the papers but also this: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." He saw no conflict between that proscription and efforts to minimize corruption. He and other Framers considered corruption a vice requiring constant vigilance precisely because it is inextricably entwined with a virtue, America's vast scope -- constitutionally protected scope -- for self-interested behavior, including political speech.
Congressional Democrats want to kill a small voucher program that gave some mostly poor and minority students alternatives to the District of Columbia's failing public schools, and the Obama administration spent additional billions to avoid a declaration of bankruptcy by General Motors. Some people think both decisions represented disinterested assessments of the public good. Others think the decisions represented obeisance by Democrats to the teachers and autoworkers unions, respectively. If the decisions were such obeisance, they were, by Teachout's standards, corrupt.
If corruption is as ubiquitous as Teachout's standard ("self-serving" behavior) says, then reasons for restricting political speech also are ubiquitous. Under today's regulatory and redistributionist government, which is busily allocating wealth and opportunity, politics frequently "appears" to many people "self-serving." It will not, however, be prettified by regulating speech.
If Teachout considers the politics produced by today's gargantuan government unlovely, she should not try to further enlarge the government by empowering it to comprehensively regulate speech about government. Instead, she should join the movement to restrain government's incessant regulating and redistributing transactions on behalf of myriad factions -- transactions that create more and more clamorous factions. The movement is called conservatism.
If political speech becomes a privilege, we are doomed!
Are you connecting the dots in the same way that I am?
Right now, with union thugs moving in on town hall meetings, we are seeing political speech becoming a privilege.
Right now, the Democratic Party and the mainstream media are painting constituents voicing questions and dissent as "extremists." Watch a few broadcasts on MSNBC to get the drift, but be sure to take your antacids or a stiff drink first. We even have Nancy Pelosi saying that dissenters to ObamaCare are carrying swastikas and deceptive photos circulating. How long before we hear that portrayal as "Angry town hall attendees are political terrorists"? And remember the ideology which drives this administration; Sunstein and Teachout make that ideology clear even though we don't hear their names front and center.
Losing our freedom of speech and even our ability to freely communicate with our elected public servants can't happen in America? Think again.
After all, who would have said a year ago that we'd be seeing these town halls, overt and covert, erupting as they have?
And could you get away with putting this sign in your yard and have your home still remain safe? Could you put this bumper-sticker version on your car and not have your car vandalized? I think that we've already lost those freedoms.
I submit that WE THE PEOPLE are being terrorized by this arrogant, power-grabbing administration and its maniacal devotees, who want us to become WE THE SHEEPLE:
Of course, not all the people are willing to be sheeple (hat tip to Reliapundit of THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS):
This topic of this posting is everywhere today, I know. But something as significant and anti-American as what the White House posted on its official web site cannot be ignored by a blog called "Always On Watch."
The screen shot (hat tip to Karen of Eastern Right):
The infamous paragraph is below the fold:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
The left believes that dissent is fine and dandy when the left is doing the dissenting. Another standard evidently applies when the right dissents.
And the White House is now promoting snitching, even extending to "casual conversation," because some Americans are wary of BHO's health-care reform. Daring to defy BHO makes targets of any who won't toe his line.
The April 27, 2009 article, "American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper," cites three factors for the descent:
1. the dumbing down of the people via the educational system;
2. the destruction of the people's faith in God;
3. the election of BHO to the Oval Office.
Regarding BHO, the article states the following:
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison....
The article concludes as follows:
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
BHO Seeking To Limit ALL Executive Pay At Every Financial Institution?
(Two posts today. Please scroll down)
Trouble of the most serious and the most extreme sort! And, if perpetrated, it WILL touch YOU, not just the AIG fat cats at whom so much anger has recently been directed! --------- From this article in the March 22, 2009 edition of the New York Times (all emphases mine):
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.
[...]
The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.
[...]
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money....
If this is not shot down immediately, then what would we be fighting the war on terror for, again? The right of a federal govt to own me? Own my potential? Own yours?
Barack Obama, if this is true, not only has no right to the office, he is a danger to the republic as it was founded.
Anyone running around thinking, 'well this will never affect me, this is about the head of GM' is in denial. This govt is trying to establish they have the RIGHT to decide what you can achieve, what your mind, your effort, and your thought is worth.
This idea, this principle, if TRUE as the NYT states, is as destructive to this republic as ANY IDEA the alien freaks of Al Qaeda, Shia Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, or KSA ever wanted.
This idea that the govt has the right to determine ANYONE'S (non govt) pay is TREASON.
Quickie link to this posting at Down Under On The Right Side. Excerpt:
In response to the College Republican’s anti-Hamas event...held on Wednesday the “offended parties” have banded together to push the school to punish the College Republicans for throwing shoes at the Hamas Flag. Over the next few days the coalition will release a statement making the following demands...
Barney Frank Advocates Limiting ALL Executives' Salaries
(With a hat tip to Pastorius at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)
In Barney Frank's own words, we have the left brazenly declaring the intention of looking to pry open Americans' pocketbooks, as quoted in Investment News:
Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that currently apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.
Mr. Frank said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies....
As Pastorius noted in his posting:
We've been warning you that the Leftist reflex is towards Communism. Of course, when we say it, we sound like paranoid "far-right extremists".
Read the entire article in Investment News, and don't overlook the following:
The committee [working on the bill in consultation with the Obama administration] hopes to have a general outline of the legislation by early April...
Remember how, before the November 2008 election, some of us tried to warn the American voter as to what could happen under a leftist administration? How were our warnings received and heeded? I was ridiculed and told that I was paranoid.
And, by the way, if this Congress and administration get their way, don't expect the limits on Americans' salaries to stop at $500,000. The definition of "wealthy" is relative, after all. For many of us, a six-digit income as low as the bottom threshhold of those digits constitutes "wealthy." In fact, this household sees $50,000 as a cream-of-the-crop figure.
Wealth redistribution — the push is on for it. Good luck not getting caught in the squeeze, one way or the other.
A reminder from a previous post here at Always On Watch (Pause the PlayList before playing the YouTube selection):
In case you can't access the above, what Obama said is below the fold.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
Barack Hussein Obama projects the I-never-sweat image. But now we see that his carefully crafted image is all smoke and mirrors (with a hat tip to commenter MJB):
Forget the 100-day honeymoon for a newly-elected President. The honeymoon is already over.
Besides, BHO is the biggest doomsayer of all and, with his doomsaying, is causing the economy to tank even further. Check out Reliapundit's posting on the topic. Excerpt:
OBAMA IS BEING OVERLY AND RELENTLESSLY NEGATIVE IN ORDER TO PUSH HIS MASSIVE SPENDING-ORIENTED "STIMULUS" PACKAGE - WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A HUMONGOUS PORKAPALOOZA FOR DEMOCRAT FACTIONS.
[...]
NO DOUBT: OBAMA'S PESSIMISM IS PREMEDITATED, A POLITICAL PLOY AND HE CARES NOT ONE WHIT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HURT BY IT.
Even if you've seen this video before, watch it again. About 10 minutes in length, the video provides a possible answer as to Obama's "coming out of nowhere":
Even if you've seen this video before, watch it again. About 10 minutes in length, the video provides a possible answer as to Obama's "coming out of nowhere":
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”—Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaking to Joe Wurzelbacher, Ohio plumber.
The source for the above cartoon is below the fold: Web site Get Liberty
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Patrons of this Blog are advised that they will be held responsible
for any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or
harmful material of any kind or nature posted by their respective ISP.
Patrons are cautioned not to transmit via comments, including links
to any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a
criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate
any applicable local, state, national or international law or
regulation. Comments here are typically unmoderated and unedited.
The fact that particular comments remain on the site
in no way constitutes the site owner's endorsement of commenters' views.
