One night last week, Jon Stewart asked his audience, “Where were the real reporters on this story?” He meant the exposure of several ACORN employees giving tax advice to a young man and woman pretending to be a pimp and prostitute. The misdirected animosity toward the “real reporters” in this instance was a rare misstep for the usually perspicacious press critic/comedian. When long-time journalists, editors, and educators decry the death of investigative reporting, this Borat-style stunt is certainly not what they have in mind. And yet in this brave new world of anything goes journalism, many in the media have taken up the scandal and accept the videos as incontrovertible evidence of ACORN corruption.
In the October issue of The Atlantic, Mark Bowden explains that the most influential investigative reporting these days is being done by what he calls “political hit men” who circulate damaging information so that newsmen have very little work to do. Bowden uses as his primary example the smear campaign against Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but were the lead time at The Atlantic a bit shorter, the ACORN tapes would have been an even better example to prove his point.
The Washington Post’s Darryl Fears and Carol D. Leonnig describe “The $1,300 mission to fell ACORN.” It started with a phone call to James O’Keefe III (the “pimp”) from Hannah Giles (the “prostitute”), daughter of a conservative blogger named Doug Giles. The plan from the very beginning was to damage the reputation of the organization. O’Keefe admits that his enmity for ACORN derived from its success helping Democrats win elections, not from any charges of corruption. The Post also points out that in Philadelphia ACORN employees called the police when the duo left the offices there. The videotape of that encounter has yet to be released, and so the prevailing image of ACORN in the mainstream media has been the one that the video makers, with a vendetta against the organization, wanted out there.
Hysterical Fox News commentators have blown this story up like a hot air balloon, and much of the rest of the media appear to believe that what Fox says goes. Andrew Alexander complains that “traditional news outlets like The Post simply don’t pay enough attention to conservative media or viewpoints.” But writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, Rick Perlstein responds: “Why would a newspaper like the The Post be training its investigative focus on ACORN now? Whether you think ill or well of ACORN, they're a very marginal group in the grand scheme of things and about as tied to the White House as the PTA.”
This right-wing stunt proved such powerful catnip to mainstream media bigfeet that amazingly, George Stephanopoulos thought it worth discussing with the President of the United States during a rare one-on-one interview opportunity. The president quite understandably explained that that he wasn’t following the story very closely, and that the country was dealing with more serious problems right now. (U.S. grants to ACORN, already suspended, account for literally 52 seconds of annual U.S. government spending, according to one careful estimate.) Stephanopoulos had nothing else to say. As though he were correcting himself, he continued, “Afghanistan is a serious problem facing the country right now.” Oh, yeah, Afghanistan….
To be fair, outside of nakedly ideological outfits, most of the reporters in the mainstream media behaved responsibly when the tapes emerged on right-wing radio shows and blogs. The tapes didn’t become legitimately newsworthy until the Census Bureau dropped ACORN from its efforts to collect 2010 census data. Initial reports even left out mention of the videotapes. But the videos are what attract media, particularly television, to this story, not government action against ACORN. Census and congressional moves to dissociate government from ACORN have become excuses to show these tapes again and again. News outlets have used these tapes even though they meet no reasonable journalistic standards.
The press has taken the release of the tapes as an opportunity to rehash the same handful of connections to ACORN that have been discussed and exaggerated ad nauseum by the openly conservative punditocracy. The Associated Press ran a piece by Sharon Theimer and Pete Yost on September 20 whose title asks, “Did ACORN Get Too Big for its Own Good?” The reporters give a history of the organization, focusing on any bad press the company has received since it began in 1970. They also refer to Barack Obama’s “long” relationship with the group. They illuminate three connections between the president and ACORN, including an endorsement by Bertha Lewis, the CEO. In addition to its being nonsense, these arguments assume that the videotapes signal a systemic failure on the part of ACORN, which has been neither investigated nor proven.
What’s more, such stories provide little context regarding what ACORN actually does. As Harold Meyerson explains in rare bit of actual contextual reporting, “Founded in Little Rock in 1970 as an organization agitating for free school lunches, Vietnam veterans' rights and more hospital emergency rooms, ACORN has grown in the past four decades into the nation's largest community organizing group. Based in low-income neighborhoods, it has nearly 500,000 dues-paying members, recruited by door-to-door canvassers, with chapters in 110 cities in 40 states. Nationwide, it has more than 1,000 staffers.”
While no one, not even ACORN, will defend the employees depicted in the videos, Joe Conason provides some context amid the hysteria on Salon. Conason points out several genuine successes that the group has had over the years. Likewise, he debunks several lies repeatedly told about them by the right.
The actions of ACORN have long obsessed the far right in this country. With terrific timing, Peter Dreier of Occidental College and Christopher R. Martin of the University of Northern Iowa just released a study in which they analyzed the complete 2007-08 coverage of ACORN by 15 major news media organizations, and the narrative frames of their 647 stories during that period. The study reveals a classic case of the agenda-setting effectof the news media: how a little-known organization became the subject of a major news story in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, to the point where 82 percent of the respondents in an October 2008 national survey reported they had heard about ACORN.
Among their findings was the fact that almost all of the coverage carried one-sided frames, repeating the conservative criticisms of the group without seeking to verify them or provide ACORN or its supporters with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. Voter fraud was the dominant story frame with 55 percent of the 647 stories analyzed using it, and this was most intense in the broadcast and cable media, with 68.7 percent of those stories using it. Indeed, voter fraud may have been the only story frame about ACORN that most news consumers experienced.
The study also examined the manner in which a network of conservative media organizations (the so-called “echo chamber”) tested and promoted their frames and channeled the stories into mainstream media agenda. They term the seamlessness of the campaign against ACORN to be “startling,” noting that in 2008 almost everything that the McCain-Palin campaign said about ACORN was exactly what the right wingers in the media had said themselves. The original campaign, they note, was concocted by conservative politicians upset with ACORN’s community organizing efforts to help poor Americans improve economic conditions and gain a stronger political voice.
During the past political year, the authors explain, these same conservatives have continued to attack ACORN and tried to link ACORN to Obama and the Democrats. Criticism of ACORN has been a consistent story on Fox News and conservative talk shows and in conservative publications, websites, and columns in mainstream newspapers. For example:
In early 2009 GOP allegations that the Democrats in Congress specifically targeted billions of stimulus funds for ACORN became news stories despite the fact that it was not true.
In July 2009, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, released a report, “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?” that repeated many of the allegations made during the 2008 campaign and that generated media attention.
On August 11, 2009, the House Judiciary Committee released over 5,000 pages of White House and Republican National Committee e-mails, along with transcripts of closed-door testimony by former Bush Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and Harriet Miers, former White House counsel. The documents revealed that Rove played a central role in the firing of David C. Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, for failing to help Republican election prospects by prosecuting alleged instances of voter fraud by ACORN.
Nearly every major news organization reported on the Judiciary Committee’s unveiling of the e-mails and transcripts, but none of them, including the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal mentioned that Rove was specifically focused on attacking ACORN for its voter registration efforts in New Mexico and other states, even though ACORN is mentioned frequently as a conservative target in the investigative documents.
The fact that the mainstream media is repeating many of these arguments today represents another triumph of the far-right in this country, not only to “work the refs” but also to pollute the content of the American political discourse and lay low the practice of honest journalism. Fake news unfortunately has many faces, but stunts like these ought not to detain anyone who is not seeking to drive a particular agenda.
Fox News Channel, for example, has been the cheerleading network for so-called “tea party” protests. But one of its associate producers took it to new heights when she was filmed pumping up the crowd at the 9/12 protest in Washington. Fox News admitted that it was inappropriate behavior and the woman “has been disciplined.” Apparently, the network draws an ethical line somewhere.
In 2007, Stewart and “The Daily Show” went after ABC’s “What Would You Do?” in which a reporter planted actors playing abusive boyfriends and parents in public places. The host ambushed bystanders who chose to mind their own business. Also in 2007, on Chris Hansen’s Dateline NBC series, “To Catch a Predator,” Hansen set up liaisons with would-be child molesters and confronted them on camera.
These shows make for crassly compelling television, and they expose the flawed, even criminal possibilities of human behavior, but they mustn’t be mistaken for journalism.
Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College. He is also a Nation columnist and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. His seventh book, Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Most Important Ideals, was recently published in paperback. He occasionally blogs at http://www.thenation.com/blogs/altercation and is a regular contributor to The Daily Beast.
Mickey Ehrlich is a freelance writer and an English teacher at Kingsborough Community College.
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Suzi Emmerling (foreign policy and security, energy, education, immigration)
202.481.8224 or semmerling@americanprogress.org
Print: Jason Rahlan (health care, economy, civil rights, poverty)
202.481.8132 or jrahlan@americanprogress.org
Radio: John Neurohr
202.481.8182 or jneurohr@americanprogress.org
TV: Andrea Purse
202.741.6250 or apurse@americanprogress.org
By Eric Alterman, Mickey Ehrlich | October 29, 2009
Rush Limbaugh felt certain he had the next big Obama story in his lap. He—or somebody on his staff—thought they had discovered a portion of Obama’s Columbia undergraduate thesis on the conservative blog Pajamas Media. The post by Michael Ledeen, a long-time associate of foreign intelligence agencies who left academia under a cloud of plagiarism charges, claimed that Time’s Joe Klein had been granted access to 10 pages of the thesis and that it revealed an antifounder bias on the part of the man who would be president. Ledeen, meanwhile, lifted the story from a blog called Jumping in Pools that had posted a phony report on the thesis back in August.
Ledeen explained later on PJM: “I cam [sic] across it on Twitter, read the blog, found it interesting, and posted on it. I failed to notice that one of the tags was ‘satire.’” Apparently, there was no due diligence other than the fact that Ledeen found the post “interesting.” The blog he was referring to didn’t cite sources or provide links for any of the information.
Right wingers have been on the hunt for Obama's undergraduate thesis since it was referred to in passing in a New York Times article in 2007. A copy of the paper, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament," has never turned up. The title of that paper was not nearly as sexy as "Aristocracy Reborn,” the title of the fake thesis posted on Jumping in Pools that Ledeen was writing about.
Here is a history from 2008 of the Obama thesis smear. The “Yes We Can” man allegedly complained in an academic paper when he said, “I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach out to me and all I can do is sigh.”
It’s no wonder Ledeen, a former contributor to The New Republic, was peddling the Jumping in Pools story, and Limbaugh was loving it. The piece had a number of slurs about Barack Obama that have percolated in the right-wing media ever since Obama came into prominence.
During the presidential campaign, writer Jack Cashill speculated at the conservative site American Thinker that ex-terrorist Bill Ayers had ghost written Obama’s celebrated memoir Dreams from my Father. To be fair, Cashill admitted in his post that he would not be able to prove conclusively that Obama did not write this book. Despite the disclaimer, Cashill went on to make one of the weakest cases for phony authorship ever committed to pixels. His “evidence” included Obama’s lack of previously published writing and the number of references to the words “lies” or “lying” in both the Ayers memoir Fugitive Days and Dreams from my Father. It went downhill from there.
After Cashill’s original blog appeared in 2008, Robert Fox, the millionaire brother-in-law of a GOP congressman, tried to prove the connection. He offered $10,000 to Dr. Peter Millican, an Oxford professor who had developed a computer program to make comparisons between texts. Times of London reported this on November 2, 2008. Millican told Fox that the initial findings made it “highly implausible” that the books shared authors. He also said that if further research was done, then the findings would be made public whether or not Ayers was proven to be the author. Fox withdrew his offer.
Nonetheless, Cashill has beaten this drum at American Thinker as recently as October 25. Again, he compares samples of Dreams to samples of Ayers’s writing. He is also convinced by the “pedestrian” prose of an essay Obama wrote in 1988.
A large part of Cashill’s argument derives from his belief Ayers is the proven prose stylist while Obama is the novice poseur. This is actually nonsense in both respects. It rests on Cashill’s method of lifting Obama’s writings out of context and comparing them to Dreams from my Father.
It would be just as easy to take decontextualized examples from Ayers’s previous writing to show what a bad writer he is. For example, this quotation from one of Ayers’s books on education, To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher, is an overwritten clunker: “We are left to think about what ought to be and what ought not to be; we are left to investigate and inquire into and with our students, and to interrogate the larger contexts of teaching; we are left to choose among conflicting claims, and this requires thinking critically and intensely about possible courses and outcomes.” That’s a tortured mouthful, but by Cashill’s logic this would disqualify Ayers from possessing the ability he shows in Fugitive Days.
Cashill cites Christopher Andersen’s biography of the first couple as further proof that Ayers was Obama’s writing partner. Andersen’s book deploys unnamed sources and wasn’t written with the Obamas’ cooperation. On September 22, Andersen appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox:
Hannity: But Bill Ayers helped him with his book, and you actually pick up—you found the literary devices and themes bear a jarring similarity to Ayers' own writings.
Andersen: That's true. And they were good friends. And during the campaign, of course.
Hannity: They were good friends.
Andersen: Yes, of course, they were.
Hannity: So he denied it.
Andersen: It was kind of—yes, he did. It was like a literary cabal there that was interesting in Chicago.
Appearing on Fox, Andersen allowed Hannity’s insinuation to stand. On CNN, Howard Kurtz questioned Andersen on the passages about Ayers in the book. Andersen was quick to say to Kurtz, “I definitely do not say that [Ayers] wrote Barack Obama’s book.” Rather than a “literary cabal,” he referred to “a group of Hyde Park writers.”
Naturally, American Thinker also ran with Ledeen’s piece on the “Obama thesis.” Denis Keohane wrote “Michael Ledeen at PJM reports…” But even Ledeen didn’t make claims to reporting—he said that he had “missed [the thesis story] the first time around.” Some reporting is exactly what should have been done.
In Keohane’s article, he took the opportunity to tell a tale of two theses. He compared coverage of the made-up Obama paper to coverage of the paper that was actually written by Robert McDonnell, the Virginia gubernatorial candidate. Keohane complains about the inflation of the significance of the McDonnell paper “across the spectrum of the media,” but he makes no attempt to confirm the validity of the claims about Obama.
Rush spoke as recently as September 30 about the claims made by Cashill on American Thinker. He also cited Andersen’s book as evidence of “the erosion of the myth of Obama.” Limbaugh, who lately has taken to referring to the President of the United States as a "boy" and a "man-child," then proceeded to read Ledeen’s post on the air without qualification.
About an hour later, a researcher slipped him a note. Limbaugh admitted that “we have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate.” Even as he made this noncorrection, Limbaugh continued to refer to the paper that “Obama wrote.” Later he found out that the site the “thesis” came from was a “satire blog” and he said, “We stand by that fabricated quote because we know he thinks it anyway.”
The Obama thesis was one instance where the mainstream media, excluding the conservative propaganda organization called “Fox News,” did not rise to the right-wing bait. Let’s see if the lesson holds next time this kind of slime rises from the right like a Balloon Boy in the sky from the muck of lies where so much of it originates.
Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College. He is also a Nation columnist and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. His seventh book, Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Most Important Ideals, was recently published in paperback. He occasionally blogs at http://www.thenation.com/blogs/altercation and is a regular contributor to The Daily Beast.
Ok this is a bold statement, and I'm interested to know how this can be proven especially because it's not backed up with example. I would call it speculation personally, I'll give it to you that it's well worded speculation, but a shiny turd is still a turd. The reason I say this is because there is a similar argument to made contradicting your statement above.
See, one could say that a free market is capable of healing itself faster than a government controlled market. There's a strong argument that say Obama's policies have prolonged the economic downturn/recession by not allowing the stronger and more solvent companies to buy out the weaker companies that failed which would have given immediate stability to the markets by giving consumers confidence that their financial institutions aren't going anywhere or being controlled by government bureaucracies.
Also, by spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars Obama has put fear in peoples minds about increased taxes, which we're already beginning to see, causing people to hold on to their money rather than spend it. A great example of lower taxes increasing consumer spending is the tax holidays that individual states have. On the weeks/weekends that the states forgive sales tax, retail sales increase anywhere from 5-20%. Now a great conclusion that could be drawn from such findings is that if you lower taxes as a whole then you'll see consumer spending increase across the board because their money is technically worth more due to the fact that a higher percentage of the money spent is going towards the purchase price, rather than to the government. Well, if sales increase then companies grow, and if companies grow then they have to hire more employees which helps decrease unemployment as well as increase government tax revenues which may be smaller on an individual basis however they will be collecting from more people which will make up the gaps.
There's 2 examples of how Obama may have prolonged the recession instead of shortened it. Another is that if you look at the policies of this administration they are extremely similar to those of FDR. Well there are many, many economists who have studied the timeline of events during FDR's presidency and concluded that his policies actually prolonged the great depression because they strangled small business and the middle class, the 2 greatest engines of our economy.
"He hasn't put conservatives in their place."
This is an interesting statement. I've left out the statement that follows because I personally could care less about what 2 people I don't even know do, as long as it's not taught to my children in school or broadcast over the television and internet for my children to see. As most liberals know, there a line to be drawn between individual liberties and consideration for others.
Anyways, I would speculate the reason for Obama not putting Conservatives in their place is that he doesn't have a leg to stand on in which to do so. Historically America has been, and continues to be a majority of center/conservative people. If Obama were to officially "put Conservatives in their place", he would see to it that he was a one term president. As it is, the Conservative movement is taking hold and Liberals/Democrats are losing ground daily. From healthcare, to cap and trade, to the global climate initiatives Obama and Co. are trying to push through Americans are beginning to see the rapid shift to the left that Obama is bringing to America. Add to this the out of control spending that this administration has engaged in and you have a pissed off nation. One would assume that when a traditionally blue state (New Jersey) elects a Republican (we'll see how conservative he is) for governor that Americans are becoming less tolerant of Obama and the company he keeps. When you have Senators completely ignoring their colleagues such as Barbara Boxer did with the climate bill by pushing the vote even though not a single Republican showed up, that scares people and shops them that both sides of the aisle aren't being considered. Obama is showing bully, Chicago thug type politics and Americans are scared that their individual states will become the same way.
"Conservatives preach freedoms but ask for an oppressive government. They want "moral laws" that oppress anyone who does not agree or live by their moral standards. That is not freedom conservatives. Moral law provides opportunity for government oppression. That has been proven through out the history of the world, and the United States. The freedoms you cry for also give the same freedoms to those who choose to not agree with you. It gives the freedom to believe a different form of government would be better. It provides the freedoms to worship, live, and pursue happiness in any form that does NOT violate the freedoms of others. That is the part that conservatives ignore. The simply want what they want, and are willing to rob others of their freedoms if they feel it is necessary to obtain what they want."
Actually, true Conservatives want these types of decisions left up to the individual states as designated by the Constitution. By doing so, it gives people the freedom to live where they deem best fit to their beliefs and "morals" if you will. True Conservatives don't believe the Federal Government has any place making any type of "moral" laws, and that the state governments should have more power over their people than the Federal Government does. This will give the people of the state more control over the government that wishes to regulate their daily lives because the state governments are more in touch with their citizens than the Federal Government.
Also, as a Conservative I really don't care what an individual decides to do or not do as long as; it doesn't hurt anybody, it doesn't cause anybody to lose something whether monetary or personal property, and is done in a ethical manner (in a business sense). There's more, but that sums it up for now. I believe when you say "Conservative" you speak of the Republican party which really is not much different than the Democrat party, except they like guns, as you witnessed in NY's 23rd district when the Republican dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat candidate instead of the actual "Conservative" candidate. Actual Conservatives are nothing like Republicans, and we are working to remove the Republicans from power who do not share our beliefs.
"Liberals are just as bad. They want to protect everyones rights and freedoms by taking away everyones rights and freedoms. They say things like "war mongering" to describe any situation in which the US goes to war. Sorry liberals, sometimes it is necessary to go to war. Liberals cry for animal rights at the cost of human rights. They suggest completely impractical sollutions to problems that only they can see."
I can agree here. Although I know many "Liberals" (not Democrats and it's taken me awhile to see the difference) and their beliefs aren't all that bad in my view. I can understand where they come from in alot of ways, however as you said most of the time they have impractical solutions for the issues at hand. Unfortunately I can see where Liberals, as with Conservatives, have been aligned with Democrats and their views.
"The US is a community. That simple. What affects one of us, affects all of us."
I couldn't agree more. What would be great is if everyone dropped this whole Republican/Democrat 2 party BS, and actually decided their core values first, then made the distinction as to whether or not they were Liberal or Conservative. The political parties are one in the same and both sides are scrambling to recover as America is waking up and realizing that they're all corrupt, evil bastards that do not have our best interest in mind. I think if we were to vote Liberal or Conservative then we would see real results because those in power would actually share our views and have the peoples' best interest in mind, and not the interests of unions, big oil, big pharma, big banking, etc. which both sides are guilty of. They could actually work together and realize they're all in their positions to look out for the people who got them there and you would actually see compassion and understanding within the government instead of agendas and corruption. When you align yourself with a certain party, you are essentially tied to their interests and it's difficult to look outside of that box once you're in it.
We have seen this for years in America, and the last 15 months it has really shown it's evil side. America is more divided right now than it has been since the 40's and neither side wants to budge from its position which get's us nowhere and allows the government to run wild with new policies and agendas because people are too busy fighting over who's right or wrong than paying attention to what's actually happening within the government.
Unless we go back to our roots, and start voting for the people who share the closest morals and beliefs we do instead of blue or red then this will only continue to happen and we will continue to be a nation divided. This type of "chaos" is what the government feeds off of to advance its power and control over its citizens, and we all need to wake up and put a stop to it. The 2 party system was created for this exact purpose and if you do your research you'll see what I'm talking about. for some time now when debating those who may disagree with me I have advocated educating yourself and researching the major political moves over the past 100 years. If everyone were to do so, I believe we would see an end to the division and people would unite to clean up Washington and get these bastards out of power...
First, you did not seek to educate yourselves in the truth of the situations that cause you fear. You accepted blindly the information given to you by the media and the government. You confused information with facts. One simply needs a basic understanding of information technology to know the difference. The media acquires data, which are unprocessed facts. They process that data into whatever they want to tell you, turning it into information. Unfortunately, they have an agenda of fear, and turn even the simplest of stories into something made to instill in you a fear of what ever they want you to be afraid of.
Second, you allowed yourselves to be divided amongst subgroups. These groups are race, gender, sexual orientation, age, financial well being, and religious and political beliefs. Then you allowed yourself to be convinced that those not within your group are “out to get you.” You are convinced that anyone not within your tiny subgroup is the enemy. That they want to take your freedoms away from you. This is simply untrue. It is holistically unreasonable to believe that the common, ordinary citizen living next to you is out to get you. This is referred to as paranoid schizophrenia in the mental health community. Is all of the US one big collection of mentally unhealthy people? No, just the completely uninformed.
He hasn't put conservatives in their place. Conservatives had the loudest voice in the "meddling" issue when it turned on them. But they also have the loudest voice in demanding government meddling in the lives of those who live differently then they do. They demand the government make it illegal for gays to be married, but demand at the same time the government stay out of their lives. That is called, by definition, a double standard. Which is usually the case when dealing with conservatives. They have the nerve to call it government meddling in their lives if gay marriage is federally legalized. I hate to tell you, if two dudes wanna tie the proverbial knot, it has nothing to do with anyone except those two dudes.
Another double standard presented by conservatives is in the market. They demand a free market, but at the same time demand for the adult entertainment industry to be regulated or shut down because it violates their personal moral standards. Hate to tell you conservatives, but you can't have a free market that only regulates business's that you dont like and leaves alone your "christian owned" stores.
Conservatives preach freedoms but ask for an oppressive government. They want "moral laws" that oppress anyone who does not agree or live by their moral standards. That is not freedom conservatives. Moral law provides opportunity for government oppression. That has been proven through out the history of the world, and the United States. The freedoms you cry for also give the same freedoms to those who choose to not agree with you. It gives the freedom to believe a different form of government would be better. It provides the freedoms to worship, live, and pursue happiness in any form that does NOT violate the freedoms of others. That is the part that conservatives ignore. The simply want what they want, and are willing to rob others of their freedoms if they feel it is necessary to obtain what they want.
Liberals are just as bad. They want to protect everyones rights and freedoms by taking away everyones rights and freedoms. They say things like "war mongering" to describe any situation in which the US goes to war. Sorry liberals, sometimes it is necessary to go to war. Liberals cry for animal rights at the cost of human rights. They suggest completely impractical sollutions to problems that only they can see.
Both these groups think with wrong parts of their anatomy. They do not see the big picture. Their tunnel vision is programmed by their chosen media outlets and their own absurd belief structures.
The US is a community. That simple. What affects one of us, affects all of us. If you kill someone, not only is that person dead, but you are in jail. That persons family is sad and angry about their loss. Your family is sad and embarrassed by your actions. The community is scared that this kind of activity will continue if you are not adequately punished. Law enforcement has to keep the community, and your rights in mind when deciding how to punish you. The community may be devided on what is the best way for you to be punished. Do you face the death penalty or life in prison. If life in prison, the community is responsible for paying for your care, including food, housing, medical treatment, clothes, etc.
So, What has Obama done so far? What hasn't he done?
From: Michael B. Keegan, President, People For the American Way
To: Interested Parties
Date: October 27, 2009
Re: McCarthyism on the rise
McCarthyism is back. Let's call it what it is.
We are seeing one witch hunt after another led by right-wing opinion leaders, media outlets, organizations and even members of Congress. They pursue personal smear campaigns, grasping at straws to create "guilt by association" and challenge the legitimacy, allegiances and patriotism of their opponents.
Remember the Bush-era attacks on the patriotism of anyone who questioned the administration's policies? Those look tame in comparison. Now, with Democrats in power, the insinuation is that the president, his advisers and his political allies are actively trying to destroy America from within and, despite being elected by the people, are inherently unfit to lead.
We stand up to right-wing bullies every day, and we want to help all courageous Americans do the same. People For the American Way is ready to confront this new McCarthyism head-on. In the coming days and weeks we will be exposing the Right's tactics and rhetoric, creating tools to help activists combat them and educating Americans about the insidious nature of what we see happening in this country, and we will impress upon Americans the urgency of stopping it.
In a 1954 Senate hearing, Army head counsel Joseph Welch famously put Senator Joseph McCarthy in his place, saying, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
In that great moment in American history, Welch called McCarthy out for his "cruelty" and "recklessness." After the testimony, the crowd at the hearing erupted in applause and all of a sudden McCarthy's power started its decline.
It's time for all of us to ask that same question -- Have you no sense of decency? -- of those on the Right who have resurrected McCarthy's tactics.
Radical Right activists ("Birthers," "Tea Baggers"), paranoid anti-government extremists and irresponsible media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (and media outlets like FOX News) -- in many cases with the backing of entrenched right-wing and corporate interest groups -- have simultaneously raised the ominous, not to mention incompatible, specters of socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism and infiltration by foreign elements. This has created a backdrop of suspicion in which McCarthy-like intimidation, guilt by association and character assassination thrive.
In the last two weeks alone, we've seen:
53 right-wing members of Congress sign a letter to the President requesting that he fire Kevin Jennings who heads the office at the Department of Education tasked with keeping schools safe, for "promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools." Jennings, a gay man and founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), has been the target of right-wing groups like Family Research Council for months. He was also the victim of false accusations that he broke the law in counseling an underage student when he was a teacher -- and the congressional letter included that allegation even though the office of the letter's primary signer, Rep. Steve King, had been made aware that the story was wrong.
Glenn Beck, whose "6 degrees of Obama" guilt-by-association attacks have generally lacked any shred of coherence, has been going after White House Communications Director Anita Dunn for once offhandedly referring to Mao Tse-tung (along with Mother Teresa) as one of her favorite political philosophers. He has repeatedly implied that this means she must endorse his heinous deeds and personal ideology while remaining conspicuously silent about the fact that many icons of the conservative movement have approvingly cited the political writings and tactics of communists like Mao, Lenin and the Viet Cong.
Just this past Sunday, the notoriously right-wing editorial page of the Washington Times savaged Judge Edward Chen, who is nominated to the Northern District Court of California, opening the piece with the sentence, "Another day, another Obama nominee who doesn't appear to love America." For its 'evidence,' the editorial cites: Chen's acknowledgement of what we all know -- that a judge's life experiences affect how he or she views a case (shades of the attacks against Sonia Sotomayor); the fact that he expressed concern -- as many thinking Americans did -- about potential recriminations for Muslim Americans following the tragedy of September 11; and his former work with the ACLU.
Of course, the use of race-baiting, red-baiting, gay-baiting and lies to characterize people as enemies of America doesn't stop with attacks on administration officials and nominees. There have been many more examples, and sadly, there will undoubtedly be many more to come.
That's why we must all be vigilant. We must call out fear-mongering and intimidation in government, in the media and in our own communities. And when we confront it, we must ask the vital question, "Have you no sense of decency?"
The moment of truth for health care is at hand, and the distortion that perhaps gets the most traction is this:
We have the greatest health care system in the world. Sure, it has flaws, but it saves lives in ways that other countries can only dream of. Abroad, people sit on waiting lists for months, so why should we squander billions of dollars to mess with a system that is the envy of the world? As Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama puts it, President Obama’s plans amount to “the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.”
That self-aggrandizing delusion may be the single greatest myth in the health care debate. In fact, America’s health care system is worse than Slov—er, oops, more on that later.
The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.
Canadians live longer than Americans do after kidney transplants and after dialysis, and that may be typical of cross-border differences. One review examined 10 studies of how the American and Canadian systems dealt with various medical issues. The United States did better in two, Canada did better in five and in three they were similar or it was difficult to determine.
Yet another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding “preventable deaths,” such as those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Senator Shelby called “the best health care system” ranked in last place.
The figures are even worse for members of minority groups. An African-American in New Orleans has a shorter life expectancy than the average person in Vietnam or Honduras.
I regularly receive heartbreaking e-mails from readers simultaneously combating the predations of disease and insurers. One correspondent, Linda, told me how she had been diagnosed earlier this year with abdominal and bladder cancer — leading to battles with her insurance company.
“I will never forget standing outside the chemo treatment room knowing that the medication needed to save my life was only a few feet away, but that because I had private insurance it wasn’t available to me,” Linda wrote. “I read a comment from someone saying that they didn’t want a faceless government bureaucrat deciding if they would or would not get treatment. Well, a faceless bureaucrat from my private insurance made the decision that I wouldn’t get treatment and that I wasn’t worth saving.”
It’s true that Americans have shorter waits to see medical specialists than in most countries, although waits in Germany are shorter than in the United States. But citizens of other countries get longer hospital stays and more medication than Americans do because our insurance companies evict people from hospitals as soon as they can stagger out of bed.
For example, in the United States, 90 percent of hernia surgery is performed on an outpatient basis. In Britain, only 40 percent is, according to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute.
Likewise, Americans take 10 percent fewer drugs than citizens in other countries — but pay 118 percent more per pill that they do take, McKinsey said.
Opponents of reform assert that the wretched statistics in the United States are simply a consequence of unhealthy lifestyles and a diverse population with pockets of poverty. It’s true that America suffers more from obesity than other countries. But McKinsey found that over all, the disease burden in Europe is higher than in the United States, probably because Americans smoke less and because the American population is younger.
Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback.
That brings me to an apology.
In several columns, I’ve noted indignantly that we have worse health statistics than Slovenia. For example, I noted that an American child is twice as likely to die in its first year as a Slovenian child. The tone — worse than Slovenia! — gravely offended Slovenians. They resent having their fine universal health coverage compared with the notoriously dysfunctional American system.
In these times of economic strife and fervent debate over health care, our great national culture war has been pushed to the side. But once in a while, it pops up its mischievous little head to remind us that the eternal battle between the hippies and the squares continues on, even if we can ignore it from time to time.
One of those moments happened on Oct. 19, when the Justice Department released a memo instructing U.S. attorneys that while prosecuting drug dealers is still an objective, they "should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana." Though the next Republican administration will probably reverse the policy, the directive seems to provide more evidence that the left is winning the culture war.
The administration's move hardly came as a surprise. During the 2008 campaign, Obama made clear his position: If doctors prescribe marijuana, that's fine with him, and if state laws allow it, then the Justice Department shouldn't waste resources on this type of drug arrest. But the memo signaled a dramatic shift from the policy of the Bush administration, which staged dozens of raids on the marijuana dispensaries that have become common in some of the 13 states that have legalized medical marijuana.
This isn't to say that the Obama administration is going to be arguing for legalization – go to the Web site of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and you'll see that the top headline reads, "ONDCP Director Declares Legalizing Marijuana a Non-Starter." Nevertheless, there does appear to be substantial momentum in the direction of more state approval of marijuana. Not only does medical marijuana enjoy overwhelming support among the American public (for instance, a 2003 Gallup poll found that 68 percent of Republicans said they favored it), even outright legalization is gaining support. A Gallup poll released last week found support for legalization reaching 44 percent, higher than at any time since the organization began asking the question in 1970. It found majority support for legalization among people under the age of 50, Democrats, liberals, and people living in the West. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in April obtained almost identical results.
We're also seeing a shift in elite debate. When Michael Phelps was caught on camera earlier this year taking a bong hit (his taste for pot didn't seem to stop him from becoming perhaps the greatest athlete on Earth), conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who is profiled in the latest issue of the Prospect, came out for legalization. "It's time to recognize that all drugs are not equal," she wrote, "and change the laws accordingly." In June, Nicholas Kristof all but endorsed decriminalization on the op-ed page of The New York Times. Last week, a committee of the California Legislature held a hearing to debate the possibility of legalizing the drug, and an initiative to that effect could be on Californians' ballots next November.
But for the moment, most legal battles revolve around medical marijuana. Those who favor a continuation of the drug war often argue that medical marijuana is nothing but a Trojan horse to allow legalization of the drug for recreational use. They're half right. Contrary to what the drug warriors would like to believe, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people could -- or already do -- legitimately benefit from the use of marijuana for a variety of medical conditions. But it's also true that legalization of medical marijuana ends up allowing lots of people who don't have much of a medical need but enjoy getting high to access the drug. And that's a good thing.
There are many reasons why, but let's just examine a couple. The first is that if someone goes down to the dispensary and tells the on-sight doctor that their bum knee is helped by smoking, they won't be supporting a criminal enterprise. They also won't risk getting arrested – which is bad for them and takes up resources that could be used to pursue actual criminals. Yet even as Americans increasingly acknowledge that arresting people for possessing pot is utterly insane, our law-enforcement agencies keep locking up more and more people for the offense. Take a look at this graph, which I produced using data gathered by the FBI in its annual Crime In the United States report:
While arrests for the production and sale of marijuana have remained static at just under 100,000 per year, arrests for possession have gone up through the decade. In 2008, over 750,000 Americans were arrested for possessing marijuana. And though we have some of the harshest drug laws in the developed world, we also have the highest rates of drug use. One recent multinational study found that 42 percent of Americans surveyed had used cannabis at some point in their life -- more than twice as many as in the Netherlands, where the drug is effectively legal (though heavily regulated). The numbers are similar for young people – 54 percent of Americans in their 20s say they have tried marijuana, compared to 44 percent of young French people and 34.6 percent of young Dutch people.
Let's get back to our friend with the bum knee. Though the dispensary system has some obvious weaknesses, it not only prevents him from having to buy from some sketchy dude on a street corner, it also strikes a blow against the Mexican drug cartels. This is because dispensaries deal in high-end, lovingly crafted product that comes almost exclusively from within the United States, with some British Columbian imports thrown in. Dispensaries would no sooner sell cheap Mexican weed than a four-star restaurant would toss a Whopper on your plate. As The Washington Post recently reported, "Stiff competition from thousands of mom-and-pop marijuana farmers in the United States threatens the bottom line for powerful Mexican drug organizations in a way that decades of arrests and seizures have not." Who knows? Maybe some day we'll even see Michael Phelps on television telling people to buy pot with the "Made in the U.S.A." label to fight the cartels.
Faced with the fact that all the pillars of the drug war have failed – the focus on interdiction, the mass arrests of people for possessing a drug most Americans have sampled and found harmless, the useless programs like D.A.R.E. that attempt to scare kids away from drugs – anti-drug crusaders tend to talk about "sending the right message," which is what you argue when you have no real arguments left. Or to put their case more succinctly: "Screw you, hippie!"
It's not insignificant that in that recent Gallup poll, support for decriminalization was highest in the West. There are plenty of conservatives in those states, but their conservatism tends to be a more libertarian brand than the evangelical Christian variety that prevails in the South, where support for decriminalization is lowest. You can see this divide in state laws. Since 1996, medical marijuana initiatives have passed in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. State legislatures passed similar laws in Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont. So you've got one Midwestern state, three New England states, and -- if you include Alaska and Hawaii -- nine Western states. (Details on all the state laws can be found in this report from the Marijuana Policy Project.)
This is just one more way the South, and the party that finds its home there, are becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the country. This isn't to say that the culture war will fade any time soon. But on issues like marijuana and marriage equality, the culture warriors are finding themselves separated from an American majority that crosses party lines.
Today's Washington Post has an interesting piece on skyrocketing sales of guns and ammo (12 billion—that's billion, with a b—rounds sold in the last year, up from 7 to 10 billion in an ordinary year). Whichever side you're on in the gun control debate, it's an interesting read. And buried deep in the piece is this arresting explanation for the phenomenon:
"I think it's Katrina. I think it's terrorism. I think it's crime. And I also think that it's people worrying about [whether] they'll be attacked by politicians," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "They're suspicious, and justifiably so."
Attacked by politicians? Now presumably he means that people think politicians are going to push gun control laws, and so "attack" their right to bear arms. But presumably as a long-time participant in this particular debate LaPierre understands the importance of picking the right words (especially since every other example he gives involves a real, physical threat). Couple LaPierre's comment with the assertion by North Carolina GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx that healthcare reform is a greater threat to the United States than "any terrorist right now in any country."
Healthcare- Not exactly what the majority of Americans would like, according to many Non-Partisan polling agencies such as Rassmussen, who actually polls conservatives, liberals, and independents equally instead of ABC or NBC who poll 75% liberals, 10% conservatives, and 15% independents.. But hey, when numbers matter, go with the ones that work for you, right?
Afghanistan- Nominated his OWN general, then waited over a month (till AFTER he recieved the peace prize)to send him the troops he said he needed. Meanwhile this has been the DEADLIEST year for our troops since the Iraq invasion, and he still wont make a decision on what to do..
Iraq- Due to the policies of the previous administration, Obama has been able to pull the troop from there as Bushs' policies were EFFECTIVE in creating stability in the region.. But this is something that doesn't get blamed on the previous administration because it worked, and Obama would like to take credit for it..
Stimulus- 14% of the money has been spent, mostly on government jobs. They say they have "saved or created" over 350,000 jobs but when states fill out the reports for how they used the stimulus money and its effectiveness, the 2 options next to jobs are "saved" or "created", there isn't an option for "existing" or "not threatened", kinda funny isn't it? The private sector has seen very little growth, auto sales were up from cash for clunkers which we all know how well that worked out, first time homebuyer sales are up but it's speculated the cost per home is as astronomical as the cash for clunkers rebates, CitiCorp filed bankruptcy, home improvement loans don't exist anymore, taxes have increased on gas, alcohol, tobacco, and I'm sure other places, unemployment continues in the hundreds of thousands per month, and small businesses are shutting down daily... The government now controls 2/3 of the auto indistry and more of the banking industry. Also, the deficits we are seeing now will take far more than 4 years to fix, and he wants to add more to it. As it is China owns us and God forbid they ever decide to collect on their debt, we're fucked.. He wants to raise taxes everywhere to continue to fund this outrageous spending and fiscal irresponsibility that has continued on from the Bush era.. Roosevelt did a similar approach and it only prolonged what the free markets would have otherwise corrected in half of the time.
National Security- He has exposed classified information to our enemies, removed our missile defense, cut funding for the best fighter jets in the world, turned DHS on conservative, bible holding Americans (as spoken by Janet Napolitano), and set a precedent for future administrations to investigate and penalize the policies of former Presidents (he should really be careful there)..
Sotomayor- The most liberal judge to ever step foot in the Supreme Court. Her nomination is an attack on American values and her opinions are that of a racist, elitist, sexist radical and her rulings will only reflect that. This isn't an accomplishment, it's a travesty and should sicken every American. Yeah, great she's Hispanic but it's not about that nor should it be..
Progressiveness in our Nation- Yesterdays election results should give the whack job liberals an ideas of how "progressive" our country wants to be. Get your BS out of here! We like America the way it is and don't want some radical left dictator type leader and his chronies telling us to live, what cars to drive, and what the temperature should be in our house.. If you liberals like that style of government so much then try Canada, it's not that far away and they have all of the socialism you could dream of! Free healthcare, high taxes, government intervention into every aspect of your life, tough gun laws, you name it, they have it... So have fun!!!
You have Rahm Emmanuel, Obama, Pelosi, and Co. calling those who speak against them un-American, yet they NEVER say that what the likes of Rush, Hannity, Beck, et-al, is inaccurate or incorrect. They use deception and smears to to get their followers to dislike the opposition, but why can't they just debate with facts? Nobody on the left can do that, NOBODY! From Arianna Huffington (whose newsletter I subscribe to, just to read the BS she spews), to Keith Olbermann, you get the same washed up stories about how Conservatives hate America and are the destruction of society, but never any reasons.. Does anybody else notice this? Does anybody notice that when asked a direct question about a policy that they can't answer it directly? It's ALWAYS dodged and misdirected and never truly answered, and this goes for most Republicans too (because most Republicans are liberals with an "R" next to their name)..
I dunno, my point is that in our daily lives most people tend to stay away from people who have nothing good to say about anyone, especially if they can't tell you why, so why is it so different in politics? Why can't people look past their political affiliation and see those in the news and politics for what they are? I'm an independent for a couple of reasons; 1. It makes it that much harder for any candidate to predict how I will vote, which I think everyone should register this way because I believe it would help to bring more honesty to the stage, and 2. Because I don't vote based on party affiliation, I vote based on who shares my values the most, even if my vote gets wasted on a libertarian or another 3rd party candidate..
I had a four-hour dinner once with Rush Limbaugh at the “21” Club in Manhattan, back in the days when I was still writing profiles as a “reporterette,” to use a Limbaugh coinage.
He was charming, in a shy, awkward, lonely-guy way. Not a man of the people. He arrived in a chauffeured town car and ordered $70-an-ounce Beluga, Porterhouse and 1990 Corton-Charlemagne.
But he was not a Neanderthal, though he did have a cold and blew his nose in his napkin. He talked about Chopin’s Polonaise No. 6, C.S. Lewis and how much he loved the end of the movie “Love Story.”
In those days, he called himself a “harmless little fuzzball.” He’s a lot less harmless now. I went on to columny, as my pal Bill Safire called it, and Rush went on to calumny.
As he and Sarah Palin conduct their auto-da-fé of moderate Republicans — “Moderates by definition have no principles,” he told his radio audience on Monday — Limbaugh is more than ever the face of his party, as Rahm Emanuel said.
He’s also the mouth.
Limbaugh is right that Democrats tend to dither too much. They’re always wondering if they’re doing the right thing, indulging in on-the-one-hand, on-the-other paralysis by analysis, seeing, as James Carville put it, “six sides to the Pentagon.”
President Obama will have to step it up on jobs and fixing the deficit if he wants to block conservatives from stoking the anger of Americans who only see a recovery on Wall Street, especially given the Republican sweep in top races on Tuesday night.
But the tactics of Limbaugh, Palin, Cheney & Fille are more cynical: They spin certainty, ignoring their side’s screw-ups, and they exploit patriotism, labeling all critics as traitors.
In an interview on “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace,” Limbaugh accused the president of trying to destroy the economy — yes, the same economy that W. came within a whisker of ruining.
“I have to think that it may be on purpose,” Limbaugh said, “because this is just outrageous, what is happening — a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom.”
Asked about Afghanistan, another W. cataclysm that has left Obama agonizing, Limbaugh stated, “I also don’t think he cares much about it.” Again suggesting that the president is an unpatriotic fop, the radio ranter averred: “He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory.”
He told Wallace that “throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military.” Actually, rigorously examining the government’s conduct of a war started on false pretenses is the best sort of patriotism.
Asked about fellow conservative George Will’s contention that the United States should get out of Afghanistan, Limbaugh said, “I don’t have the benefit of knowledge that George Will has, so I trust the experts, and to me they’re the people in the U.S. military.”
Even a chickenhawk like Rush should remember how well that worked in Vietnam, or in the early years of Iraq. The founding fathers designated a civilian as commander in chief for a reason.
Military brass have told the White House that this is the first time in eight years that they have gotten the attention and resources that they’ve needed in Afghanistan.
If W. had gone to Dover in the middle of the night to salute the war dead, Limbaugh and Liz Cheney would have been gushing about his patriotism.
But since it’s Obama who at last showed up there to see the brutal cost of war, they simply have to dismiss the moving moment as a publicity stunt.
Years ago, when I dubbed Dubya “The Boy Emperor,” Limbaugh spewed a stream of personal invective about me that embarrassed even my mother, a Limbaugh fan.
But now Limbaugh calls Obama the “man-child president.”
The 48-year-old Obama is skinny and getting skinnier, but there’s nothing childish about him. He more or less raised himself and came to terms with his Oedipal demons on his own, and he radiates a hard-won maturity.
W., on the other hand, was like a kid who knew that Daddy’s friends would take care of him; he was always running off to the gym or going biking, leaving the governing to his regents, Cheney and Rummy, or incompetents like Brownie.
At our long-ago dinner, Limbaugh credited his success with being “one-dimensional.” “I’m totally concerned with me,” he said. And that was way before he got a contract for $400 million, so we can only imagine how one-dimensional he is now.
But on Sunday, he ripped the president for having “an out-of-this-world ego,” for being “very narcissistic,” “immature, inexperienced, in over his head.” (Isn’t immaturity scoring OxyContin from your maid?)
It's been a year since a healthy majority of American voters elected Barack Obama to change the world. Which is precisely what he's doing.
Like many people who desperately want to see the country take a more progressive course, I quibble and quarrel with some of President Obama's actions. I wish he'd been tougher on Wall Street, quicker to close Guantanamo, more willing to investigate Bush-era excesses, bolder in seeking truly universal health care. I wish he could summon more of the rhetorical magic that spoke so compellingly to the better angels of our nature.
But he's a president, not a Hollywood action hero. Most of my frustration is really with the process of getting anything done in Washington, which is not something Obama can unilaterally change, nimbly circumvent or blithely ignore. One thing the new administration clearly did not anticipate was that Republicans in Congress would be so consistently and unanimously obstructionist -- or that Democrats would have to be introduced to the alien concept of party discipline. It took the White House too long to realize that bipartisanship is a tango and that there's no point in dancing alone.
Step back for a moment, though, and look at Obama's record. His biggest accomplishment has been keeping the worst financial and economic crisis in decades from turning into another Great Depression. Yes, the $787 billion stimulus package has been messy, but most economists believe it was absolutely necessary -- and some believe it should have been even bigger. Yes, Obama continued the Bush-era policy of showering irresponsible financial institutions with billions in public funds. Yes, the administration bailed out the auto industry -- and we actually heard the president of the United States reassure Americans that General Motors warranties would be honored.
But these and other actions convinced the financial markets that the White House would do anything to avoid a complete meltdown. The economy grew at a rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter and, while unemployment may not yet have peaked, the odds of a strong and fairly swift recovery have greatly improved.
Responding to the crisis required creating an enormous fiscal deficit that Obama will spend years trying to reduce. But not even the most conservative economists recommend attacking the deficit before the economy is stabilized on a path of growth. Only Republican demagogues think that's a good idea.
On national security, Obama moved at once to categorically renounce torture -- a big step toward removing the ugly stain that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney left on our national honor. It looks as if Obama will miss his self-imposed one-year deadline for closing the Guantanamo prison, but a delay of a few weeks or months will be worth it if the administration succeeds in developing a comprehensive legal framework -- consistent with our ideals and traditions -- for bringing terrorism suspects to justice.
Obama should have supported a full-blown investigation into apparent Bush-era violations of national and international law. And, at a minimum, he should allow the limited torture probe ordered by Attorney General Eric Holder to follow the evidence wherever it might lead.
But at least the administration is on schedule in withdrawing combat troops from Iraq. I don't think Obama knows the right answer on Afghanistan; I'm not sure anybody does.
Obama's months in office have been so action-packed that it's easy to forget some of the historic steps he has taken: nominating Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Going to Egypt and speaking directly to the Muslim world about cooperation rather than conflict. Embracing multilateralism as the template for U.S. foreign policy in the new century. Accepting the scientific consensus on climate change. Investing in "green" jobs and education reform as key engines of economic development.
And then there's health-care reform. I've been impatient with Obama's strategy of letting Congress take the lead on writing legislation, but he's brought us to the brink of truly meaningful reform much faster than anyone could have imagined a year ago. We still have some fighting to do over two words -- "public" and "option" -- but it looks like the principle that everyone is entitled to health insurance, a Democratic Party goal for at least six decades, is about to become law.
There has been lots of speculation on why Representative Mel Watt has done his best to make sure that the Audit the Fed bill will be gutted, and why the Congressman is willing to promote the same irresponsible and unaccountable bubble-inflating behavior that got us to the current Fed-sponsored, bubble-reflation attempt, which is practically guaranteed to end much worse than just a few Goldman competitor banks imploding here and there.
Here are some attempts at reconstrcuting Representative Watt's motivations courtesy of Robert Wenzel at EconomicPolicyJournal.com. It should make all questions as to why Fed transparency is not Mr. Watt's friend, quite clear.
The Tom Woods' congressional testimony last week Friday in favor of the 'Audit the Fed' bill had two very curious turns, he set off extremely hostile questioning from two congressmen, by the hearings Committee Chair Barney Frank and Representative Mel Watt. Every other Congressman that questioned Woods, and Fed General Counsel Alvarez, was seemingly concerned about where the money the Fed is printing is actually going. But not Frank and Watt.
I discussed Frank's hostility, here. Watt was even more hostile. It looked like he was hit by a lightning bolt everytime Woods tried to answer a question that Watt posed. He interrupted Woods everytime, as though Woods was taking food off of his dinner table. But, maybe that's exactly how Watt's saw Woods testimony.
Most of the top industries donating to Watt are major beneficiaries of Fed money printing. His top industry donors are at #1 the commercial bankers industry, at #3 the building trade unions (All that Fed money printing benefited the building trade unions probably more so than anyone else), and at #5 the securities and investment industry. The current #1 corporate donor to Watt is Citigroup Inc.
During 2007-08 his top contributors were:
#1 Bank of America
#2 Wachovia Corp
#3 American Express
#4 American Bankers Assn
Overall in 2007-08, he received $187,359 from the Finance/Real Estate sector, more than double the amount of money he received from any other sector. Outside of North Carolina, his home state, Watt received the most contributions from Washington D.C. and New York City. Hmm, NYC donations for a North Carolina boy.
Last year Edmund's forecasted that 2009 sales would be 13.7 million. In June they wrote "June Sales To Hit 10 Million SAAR; Detroit Share Improves, Edmunds.com Forecasts". This means that they readjusted their initial forecast by 30%.
If you google car sales forecasts, they've been constantly readjusted downward for the last few years. Any time you enter uncharted waters economically, you're going to have to adjust, because your numbers can't account for a situation that hasn't happened before.
However, what this report is trying to do is forecast a future that didn't happen and never will happen. We can never know how bad or good the numbers would have been because we don't have the historical data to accurately represent the recession or the effect such a program would have in such a recession.
What it comes down to is that this report is highly speculative and they are somewhat irresponsible for not providing some sort of disclaimer.
Now, since you have the intelligence of an extraterrestrial being, I thought you may have been able to understand this, but we'll give you a pass considering everyone makes mistakes.. I will be glad to explain.
They examined the sales trends of luxury vehicles and others not included in the CARS program on purpose to compare data. They ALSO examined the sales trends of the vehicles included in the program, as stated when they compared the ineligible vehicles to the total SAAR. Then they went back to historical statistics and compared the findings from both examinations, and the results are as shown in this statement and in the link I provided below.
You should try COMPREHENDING instead of just reading, it's kinda like the difference between listening to someone and hearing them. You will learn much more that way.
Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been gutted while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.
The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today.
Theres nothing left, its been gutted, he said in a telephone interview. This is not a partisan issue. People all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.
... continue reading ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=atc2o1ijLRno
To all of you who have been diligently working to get Audit the fed passed, THANK YOU! To all of the rest.....GET OFF YOUR ASSES and DO SOMETHING!!!!!!
With the hormones injected into our food chain it's no wonder girls and boys are reaching puberty at 10!
A guy doesn't want his daughters lives ruined at 14 with a pregnancy. He doesn't know how to give "the talk" because religious beliefs kept his parents from it so, he shows them a film online.
The cops don't like it. Mom doesn't like it. TOO BAD.
The man did what he knew to do. Maybe he wanted to repulse them to the idea of sex until they were old enough to understand their own emotions.
it's his right as a father. Now people with agendas want him in jail. how convenient. Beats the hell out of raising grandchildren at 35.
YEP, the NCDP CAN BE SHUT down by the people...and it is TIME people!
email them at www.NCDP.org and tell the bastards to dissolve their filthy selves and get the hell out of here...they
do NOT meet the standards that NC needs anymore...
Is it simply selfishness and greed, trying to gain a living off of the backs of other Americans? If so, that is truly sad to know that fellow human beings can be so ignorant and self centered to find justification in the theft of classes because they are not able to better themselves.
I also wonder if they truly want ot destroy America and it's economy.. Spending that creates deficits this high will only do such a thing. When that happens, nobody gets anything! Don't people realize this?
How did the law get turned around where the ones committing treason under the color of law have made owning certain guns /smoking pot/living by the laws of your state in post 9/11 america the treason?
the prez[every one since 1937 when pot became illegaland close by ...tommy guns illegal because of alcohol prohibition ] and congress[same] made those distinctions. they are the traitors. not the people exercising their rights. the gov't created these criminals. guns & plants only became illegal to fit a gov't agenda. not the peoples .
it's your body if you want to murder an unborn human being but, it's not your body when you decide to consume a plant? how insane is that?
there's a new bill in congress right now....TODAY..[10/28/09]. to allow medical marijuana users and providers the benefit of showing evidence in fed court that they are practicing medical mary by the constitutionally protected state laws voted on BY THE PEOPLE of these states . do you understand that?
there is actually a law[bill] to allow evidence in federal court where the laws weren't voted on by the people to be presented that, they are abiding by state law which, the people did vote on. who do you trust? the people or congress?
now. whether you agree with MM makes no difference to the constitution but, it will to many ignoramuses who oppose mm. they will actually be AGAINST evidence because they don't believe MM should be available to sick people.
the point is do you believe in the u.s. constitution which makes the GOV'T PROVE your guilt? or do you believe that congress has a right NOT GIVEN by the people to say you don't have a constitutional right to be left alone and follow the laws of your state. remember the 10th amendment? states rights.
ever notice that it's always a pedophile or drug user or murderer that, gets your rights taken away? that's cause congress knows you won't defend them because as you quoted " the criminals have more rights than the victim". don't you understand that the criminal is the victim? you would if you were the one accused. you have no constitutional right to not be a victim of crime other than owning a gun..which is almost illegal in itself.
the cops weren't there. they are using EVIDENCE against you that, like the fr33agent.com law school videos show...they just accuse whomever they can place there because, w/o eyewitnesses,dna or some other damning evidence there is no proof the accused committed the crime.
"YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS"!!! AS YOU ALSO QUOTED.
there is a plethora of laws that deny the constitution with lawyer talk.
let me try and splain better to you: i'm sick and my doctor [not the DEA] determines pot will help me. the laws of my state allow me to grow or have someone grow and supply pot to me. the fed comes in denies the 10th...arrests me and my provider and maybe even my doctor. we are all charged with trafficking,manufacturing and distribution of a schedule 1 drug. all of our property is taken, our dogs shot, our kids to dss ,our wives are aiding and abetting or thrown in the street. we are tried with no right to present evidence we are following state law. the court makes us/me/you defend ourselves against accusation of violating all these fed drug laws. we have TO PROVE WE ARE INNOCENT W/O THE EVIDENCE THAT SAYS WE ARE innocent. the jury only hears that we trafficked drugs under the cover of being sick/providing/treating a patient.
the victim is the children of amerika...the MESSAGE to the children and whatever nonsense they come up with.
you...you don't like "dopers",pushers nor the mexican traffickers they bring up which have nothing to do with the case but, sway a jury whom has been carefully selected and have immigration issues and.... has only heard half the story. the feds half.
who is being victimized? all of us living under the constitution however, they will get a jury of people who disagree with pot for any reason and send us to prison,keep our stuff and destroyed many lives in the process.
ALL WITH YOUR APPROVAL....CAUSE YOU HATE "DOPERs"
COMPREHENDE' SENOIR?
THE ACCUSED IS THE VICTIM OF THE LAW. the victim of the crime has no protection but, the gun he couldn't have because of another fed law that says he can't have one while, the 2nd amendment says nothing about what guns you can have. it just says we can have guns. i equate that to an abrahms tank in my front yard if, that's what i feel i need. hunting doesn't have a damn thing to do with it!
the prez and congress allow the injustices so morons like you think they are benefitting all americans...especially the children they brainwash 8 hours a day that aren't accountable to their parents because the gov't wants their minds controlled not free.
i could go on and on and on but, it makes me sick to see how stupid people are.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if current spending trends continue at their present pace, by 2050, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid expenditures will constitute virtually the entire U.S. budget. By 2082, Medicare expenditures alone will do so. According to the CBO, in order to allow the government to continue with its current programs and also balance its budget, the lowest income tax bracket would have to rise to 26%. Those people presently paying 25% in taxes would have to pay 66%. Those currently paying 35% would have to pay 92% of their income in federal income taxes!
If we add the current national debt of $11.82 Trillion to the unfunded liabilities of $106.8 TRILLION, we arrive at a grand total of $118.62 TRILLION in debt and unfunded liabilities. That amount is 55 times more than current federal government revenues. Think about that for a minute. It's the equivalent of a policeman or a school teacher who earns $75,000 per year but has incurred a total of $4,125,000 in debts and legal obligations. To put it bluntly, there ain't a snowball's chance that the debts can be paid and all the promises can be kept.
The United States has incurred debts and has made promises which will be difficult, if not impossible, to keep. It would be political suicide for our politicians to raise taxes to the levels indicated as necessary by the CBO. Instead of advocating fiscal responsibility, our current leaders are talking about increased programs, ‘entitlements,’ and deficit spending. There is currently no political will or courage to cut government spending and put our public finances in order….”
Your closing statement in this paragraph I agree with, however where does it end? When can someone sit down and say that they feel they have regulated enough and it's time to let nature take its course? What we are seeing is social engineering, and it's not right. I happen to be one of those people who doesn't gain weight that easily and I also happen to like sweets and fatty foods, yet because other people can't practice self control, I'm going have to pay higher taxes on the foods I like? Sorry brother, you can piss of with that argument.. Also as I previously stated, I'm a responsible gun owner.. So because VERY few people can't be responsible with theirs, mine has to be extremely regulated, if not made unavailable at some point? Piss on that too.. Howabout all the happy homeowners who paid their credit cards and mortgages on time, and instead of being rewarded for their responsible deeds, their taxes will soon go up to pay for those who couldn't do that, which caused the government to "bailout" the financial institutions?? Piss on that too! Here's one, people go to a BAR to drink ALCOHOL and then get in their car and drive home, but cigarette smoke is bad for them so it's going to be banned in bars and restaurants instead of letting the businesses decide for themselves... Piss on that too!! Better yet, My federal income tax is a large percentage of my wages.. This money goes to funding the military (good, in the constitution), our infrastructure (good, roads are neccessary), foreign aid (not good, it should stay here), entitlement programs (not good, it enables the lazy), bailing out private industry to take them over (not good, that's fascist), soon to fund nationalized healthcare (not good, will give government too much control), paying Congress and the President (should be good but isn't, they don't listen anymore), funding ACORN (not good, they are corrupt assholes), funding the endowment of the arts (not good, if arts aren't paying the bills then find a new profession), funding education (could be good, but it's entirely too politicized), you get my point.. Yes, I am damn well fed up with the fucking nanny state that America has become. A bunch of whiney ass people all trying to get something for nothing.. No, it didn't start in January, it started in the 40's and 50's and has only gotten worse since.. It needs to stop or it will be the downfall of our nations. we're being bled dry by the parasites who feed off of the government and the middle class is footing the bill..
"Silent majority? Now you want to play victim? what a load of bullshit. People like you are not silent, you are raising your ignorant voices louder then any others. You are out having "tea" parties, showing up in high schools a week after a student goes nuts and kills his fellow students preaching the good of owning a gun, showing up and "town hall" meetings spewing forth the same lies and bullshit you see on Fox News. Not to mention, completely making up, off the top of your heads, fake statistics about foreign countries to "battle" the "gay epedemic." silient majority? no, you are the loud mouthed minority, that is why Obama, and not that senile old fart, is president."
Really? You don't think middle America has been victimized by the civil rights movement? You don't think middle America is the worst impacted from these social entitlement programs? You are highly uninformed my freind, highly. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and check into which tax brackets get hit the worst based on income, that's if it doesn't cut into your worshipping Obama time.. Check the REAL stats, and not the biased polls that question 85% liberals on liberal ideas that NBC and company are showing you, you'll see aht I'm talking about...
Also, when the million man march happens, do people like me say anything? Nope. When they marched on the hill for immigration reform, did we call the protestors "wetbackers"? Nope. So why is it that when people are tired of taxation which is upwards of 55% after you include all the little taxes in daily transactions, we get called "teabaggers"? It's interesting in liberal world, you love everyone till they disagree with you, then you just call them names instead of having thoughtful debate, great tactic. By the way, how do you feel about Pelosi now calling government run insurance the "consumer option"? It probably gave you a hard-on didn't it? Hearing that dirty talk come out of that old bitches mouth...
"Oh, and here's a quote of someone, who agree's with you, a perfect example of why "people like you" need to be watched."
Remember when greenpeace bombed that boat? They agree with you, so shouldn't you be watched? Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon and he agrees with you, shouldn't you be watched? Mao Tse Tung killed 70 million people and he agreed with you, shouldn't you be watched?
That guy made a hypothetical example of how fed up he was with the liberal pussies in our country and now he should be watched?? Please, get informed man... I hate to see someone who seems intelligent talk so ignorantly in such a public place.. If you really took the time to research what you are arguing from ALL sides, and not just the left you would be right here with me.. I don't like either party, believe me, I'm not going to tout Republican straight ticket or anything like that.. The government as we know it is evil and will take everything from us because of uninformed people like you.. You call me crazy now, but you'll see what I'm talking about soon enough..
1. To get 'free' stuff from the government, even when it comes at the expense of one's neighbors and fellow Americans. Examples would be welfare, public assistance, etc. Businesses also lobby the state to get 'free' stuff, in the form of subsidies, protective tariffs, import quotas, etc.
In other words, to benefit at someone else's expense.
2. To force others to live in a manner that they (the voter) deems appropriate - even if the actions of others caused no harm to the voter. Examples of this would be prohibition laws (criminalization of prostitution, some drugs, bans on alcohol purchases on Sunday, etc.).
One could also include foreign military interventionism in this category - the desire to police the world.
In other words, to impose one's moral views on everyone else.
" People like me, and those i have described above are the silent majority"
Silent majority? Now you want to play victim? what a load of bullshit. People like you are not silent, you are raising your ignorant voices louder then any others. You are out having "tea" parties, showing up in high schools a week after a student goes nuts and kills his fellow students preaching the good of owning a gun, showing up and "town hall" meetings spewing forth the same lies and bullshit you see on Fox News. Not to mention, completely making up, off the top of your heads, fake statistics about foreign countries to "battle" the "gay epedemic." silient majority? no, you are the loud mouthed minority, that is why Obama, and not that senile old fart, is president.
Oh, and here's a quote of someone, who agree's with you, a perfect example of why "people like you" need to be watched.
"DITTO!!! Fuck off fascist. We don't need a big brother,mommy,daddy. we're over 18 & free. don't need your oversight. Get the fuck outta my life before I end up the corned nut with a gun on the 6pm news.
I was gonna write but, they did. thanks.
ditti ditto fuck you & ditto
don't fire till you see the redness of their eyes."
"Children are turning against their parents if they disagree with the current "change". The day is coming very soon when children will deliver their parents to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA's currently developing security force."
- That is because they will be good little 14th amendment citizens. What is ironic about what you say regarding children delivering their parents is have you ever looked at your birth certificate or a family members? Why would they list my mothers name as the "informant"? haha! Interesting little contract mom had no idea what it was when signing....
"The "rap" brainwashing/conditioning will be activated soon."
- That has been going on probably before your parents were born.
"This place has become too surreal to believe, and you ain't seen nothin' yet. "
- Why do you think that is? Why do you think this place has become to surreal?
"Ineligible hamitic servants controlling government: genocide, racial wars, famine, every manner of sexual abomination, TYRRANY at an unbelievable volume, total poverty, total loss of freedom, judgement of God."
- (Hamitic) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic What makes you think what you listed isn't going on right here in our "own" country right now? What makes you think people aren't waking up to the items you listed?
"These things are set in motion and judgement is in a few years. I will be dead well before the judgements begin. If you believe the changes of the past year and the leadership of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA are a good thing; you are simply deluded as they are."
- I am curious to what you assume and presume there. Why do you think this starts or stops at Obama? Do you think the changes pre-obama were a good thing?
Anyone ever hear that our souls only weigh 21 grams? A little bit of interesting trivia/possibly folklore for ya...
They took over GM with OUR money - they gave OUR money to failing banks -They were in such a hurry to do some of those things but seem to be slow at getting our soldiers help or the hell out of Iraq & Afganistan!
They want to add taxes to OUR energy - they want to add more & more taxes to everything - I pay enough taxes - I am sick of seeing them spend like mad ! They need to look up the word BUDGET !
Contact the white house! Contact your senators & reps let them know you are watching & you do care ! We can not afford to sit back and let them run this country into the ground !
"EVERY SINGLE problem you have, is ALL YOUR FAULT!"
- Rephrase it, IMO it should read: "EVERY SINGLE problem WE have, is OUR OWN FAULT!"
"You want to say you think Obama will take away your freedoms and try to control you, then you blame him for YOUR mistakes. Maybe he would do a better job at contolling your shitty life then you have.
- Are you not part of the collective? What kind of energy are you putting out with your post? Are YOU not BLAMING? Correct me if I'm wrong, and I just got up so I haven't been wrong all day as of YET, but does the title of your post not read, "All of you blaming..", and then proceed to use the word YOU and YOUR 18 times with adjectives describing YOU and YOUR? Like I said in an earlier post, we are nothing but mirrors to each other. You put out a negative vibe, what did you get back in return from at least 2 others as of this writing? I don't think they wanted to meet up with you for beers and good times (that is just an assumption and presumption on my part)! Why do you think anyone here has a shitty life? Because it's not the same as yours? Because everyone has different views? Obama couldn't take away anyone's rights. We have to volunteer them up. If we don't know our rights, how do we know we have any?
"Americans need to have more government control because you retards can't even manage to keep from killing each other."
- How can something make-believe control even the most retard of retards? Only a fool would allow a soulless fiction dictate the actions of our hearts and souls. As far as killing each other, is that the position you are taking? More govt = less loss of life? The position I am taking is that I will conditionally agree with that assumption provided you can back it up.
"You lack the intelligence to efficiently control your life, so someone needs to take over. Obama is just as good for the job as ANYONE BUT YOU!"
- Again, what are you basing this on? Who do you believe sets the standards for how someone should live? How could a man tell another man he's never met that he is going to control his life because he knows what's best?
I think you are on the right track, but to me your post is very ignorant (not idiotic) packed full of assumptions and presumptions and offers no help to your fellow man (who YOU have to share the planet with too) on how WE can solve OUR worldly problems (world = fiction).
"OMFG you people are retards, every one!"
- Do you know what's better than winning the silver medal at the special olympics?....... Pshh, not being retarded!
don't fire till you see the redness of their eyes.
What about those of us (the majority) who don't need a mommy 24/7? Those of us who have been good, not overspent, don't drink and drive, own guns but wouldn't dare use them in a malicious manner, go to work everyday and pay our taxes, eat right, keep our mouths shut as the freedoms and liberties we enjoy are being slowly stripped from us because of people like you who think that it's their job to correct the wrongdoings of minority groups (no, not race related but the obese, the criminals, thugs, welfare queens, basically everyone you just called retarded)?
I believe you are retarded. People like me, and those i have described above are the silent majority and fortunately for us, people like you have been overlooking how we feel for far too long. Well now we see our rights being infringed upon by the liberal left in this country and we're NOT going to take it. You'll see. Come 2010, CONSERVATIVES and NOT just Republicans WILL be voted into the open seats into Congress and this madness will stop dead in its tracks. Then people like you will have to smarten up and figure out a better way to enable the welfare queens, lazy, or anybody else you feel the need to "help" by destroying liberty within this country.
You want to say you think Obama will take away your freedoms and try to control you, then you blame him for YOUR mistakes. Maybe he would do a better job at contolling your shitty life then you have. Americans need to have more government control because you retards can't even manage to keep from killing each other. You cant stop drinking and driving. You lack the intelligence to efficiently control your life, so someone needs to take over. Obama is just as good for the job as ANYONE BUT YOU!
It all a game. Each and everyone one of us lives in a WORLD, those worlds are not synonymous with Earth. My world is different than yours as rEVOLotion has a different world as does obama, as did walter cronkite as does Unfree World. We all see things differently. When the astronauts were checking out the planet from space, they called it Earth, NOT the world. Earth = real, World = make-believe.
Are we employees of the USA INC? If not, how do the actors playing roles in this game of make-believe think that we are obliged to follow that particular corporations rules, statues, by-laws, codes, etc.. (assumption and presumption)? If I worked at walmart, I would be bound by their rules, say no drinking on the job. Ok, well if I had a drink or two and then stopped by walmart to pick something up, am I not allowed to go into the store if I had a couple of drinks? I'm not talking about being drunk staggering in there "ACTING" like a fool... Say I just got done with dinner and had a couple of beers, if I were an employee and I had a couple of beers during my break, if walmart does have a no drinking policy, would I have broken the rule I agreed to when accepting the job? We can do ANYTHING we want just as long as we 1. dont hurt others, 2. dont damage property 3. dont commit frauds. Those 3 things are very simple to follow, they should be second nature....
Pretty much everything we've been taught (lied to) about the system is complete bullshit. THE UNITED STATES is not the country we were taught... It's cool if we want to believe that, it is our CHOICE, and as long as we do, we will be pawns in "THEIR" game. Divide and conquer. That is "their" goal and as long as people keep crying dems this repubs that, they "win".
It's actually pretty simple to solve, all we have to is change the way we think. Does that cost any federal reserve notes? Nope.
Just remember, everything we do is mirrored. If we are an asshole to someone, are they gonna be an asshole back? What about if we are nice, are we going to get that back in return? That goes the same for the system... MIRROR what the actors do to us.
Speaking of games, what are some games played on? COURTS. I just saw a brochure for a small claims court filing the other day, know what it had on the cover? A tennis ball going over a net.... Why would they put a tennis COURT on the front of the brochure? Because when you are in court, you "volley" with your adversary. How do you score? When the other can't "hit" back....
Would you take orders from your gardener? How about the maid? WE pay "THEIR" salary right? So why would we take orders from them?
Speaking of orders, when I go in somewhere say like McDonalds, I place my order, they fulfill it I pay right? MIRROR that. When a cop gives us an order (pulls us over) we have fulfilled his/her order, now guess what? THEY are liable for a bill because we fulfilled the order he/she placed! Guess what? People are now collecting on these orders! Don't believe me? Good, I don't want you to, I am a liar... find the truth out for yourself by doing your due-diligence. How do we think we got here? Was it by just taking someones word? ROFLMAO, yep, that's what it is! If I charge $250 to fulfill an order for someone who order from me to pull over, do you think they are going to order my services anymore? Anyone ever hear of a "Fee Schedule"? It is just like a menu at every restaurant. My restaurant is too expensive to eat at and the service wasn't that great! I can charge whatever I want to charge for any of my services. Would I bill the cop directly, or the department? Can a department do anything? It only exists on paper, how can a department make, give, take away, anything to/from us? Why do we have a drivers license? Because someone told us we had to....? Anyone actually read the motor vehicle act before getting their drivers license? hahaha! Of course not, we just wanted to be mobile to pick up chicks and get laid... we don't have time for all that reading..... OOPS! What exactly did we contract to? lol.... I see someone posted a couple of vids on not to talk to cops ever.... those are GREAT videos, I have quite a few things to add to them...
Deceit, deceit and more deceit. Anyone having fun yet? Games are supposed to be fun! There are ways to have fun with this stuff!
Why don't we hear any president referred to "The President of America"? Would it be because the corporation is not called America, its called the UNITED STATES? hmmm.... Look how corporations are set up and structured and compare that to the usa as "we" know it. It's as clear as a bell, especially when we turn off that poison box (TV) and put our minds to use.
We all know the wizard of oz and have seen it many times on tv and even heard about the dwarf who died on the set. If you haven't checked out this link, it is one of the things that really summarizes what is going on in the "WORLD".... a major piece of understanding to the whole picture:
I am not very active with politics, but would like to change that. The truth is - is that I do not know a whole lot about what it takes to run for any office. If you have any knowledge in this area and would like to help me out please email me.
If I would ever get elected into an office, I would serve the people and not myself.
"However I am going to say something that someone less open minded would say in an insulting manner."
- Awe, no gay porn or what i did to my daddy in myers park with larry craig last night? lol...
"While I completely understand the connection you were making with the movie the Matrix and our daily lives, using a plot from a movie does seem a little out there to the less informed people we've grown to know and love around these parts."
- Yeah that's ok, IF they ever do wake up, they will be in shock once they realize how similar both life and the movie really are... minus the cool cgi effects of course...
"Now, my challenge to you is how would one go about getting others to understand that the very people they think are trying to help them are the ones hurting them?"
- That is the million dollar challenge if you ask me. Education, education and more education! How do you get an alcoholic to stop drinking? You can't until he/she hits bottom. I was an obamanoid and yea got caught up in the hype and wasted my time on him voting (now knowing voting is an absolute waste of time), but after 8 years of the bush-reich, anyone but a damn republican HAD to be better than what we had just went through. So in the waning days of shrub, I was on here posting back and forth between me and Unfree World. He posted a lot of things that sounded weird and very anarchist to me at the time. I actually took the time to give what he was saying a chance and checking out the links as I do pretty much everyone here. The more I did, the more I started to realize what was going on. After obama was sworn in, he was continuing the bullshit lies and doing complete 180's on his campaign promises. I had enough of this lying crap. I kept asking myself how are these people so goddamn corrupt and not rotting in jail right now? Well one thing led to another and the picture became clear as a bell! Do you know those 3d pictures that you have to stare in until the picture pops out? This was the same thing for me.
I remember this one anonymous post that opened a door for me and brought that 3d picture out for me to see. The post talked about how you can do this and that with your credit cards, mortgages, licenses in general, etc... so after doing my own fact-checking, that has led me down my path that has literally changed my life, from the way I see things even down to the way I sign "my" name on paperwork.... It turns out, what we have been programmed to believe is absolute, 100% bullshit. That is a fact. Pretty much everything in life as we know it is all make-believe. Knowing who we are also means knowing who we are not. That is the most important thing to me. Knowing who we are takes away the box we have been programmed to live in.
"How do you get people to realize that we're all born into slavery by the Federal Reserve and world banking system?"
- As long as people are happily eating their McDonalds (yes i had a angus and swiss the other day), glued to the idiot-lookity-box (TV), why would they give a crap about anything else? TV is horrible for our brain waves, not to mention all the crap and poisons we ingest on a daily basis into our bodies.
Educate others on what the federal reserve really is: http://www.google.com/search?q=jekyll+island+and+federal+reserve&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
"That oppression is the means used to enslave us so we have no choice in the matter?"
- Oh no, we have a choice all right. The choice is to be part of the smoke and mirrors game and continually live as debtors enslaved, or we can pull our game token at any time. Everything is done through contracts, that is how they get us.... But their contracts are NOT valid because we were not given full disclosure on the contracts we have like when we got our SS#, when we got our drivers licenses, when we got our marriage licenses, etc.... full disclosure was not given and that nulls and voids ANY contract. All of those are nothing more than contracts between our STRAWMAN/LEGAL FICTION and the gob'ment (legal fiction) How does a legal fiction like gob'ment do business with real flesh and blood men? Through our STRAWMAN/LEGAL FICTION (legal fiction). A legal fiction is created out of thin air. It is make believe. Now, knowing that we all have a legal fiction known as our strawman/person (legal definition of "PERSON" is a corporation), you also know now that you are NOT a person (legally speaking), you HAVE a person.... We have to learn who we are and more importantly, who we are NOT... I don't know about anyone else, but I am 100% sure I'm not a corporation.
"It's near impossible, for those who will never get it are the ones who benefit from the oppression of others.. Unfortunately those very people are becoming more abundant due to the oppression we see. It's a viscous cycle that can go no place but downward as more and more people become reliant upon the government."
- Exactly, its just like a child that has to ask permission from the parent. Who the fuck (excuse my french) are "they" to tell me what I can and can't do? Unless "they" have a written note signed by God and that signature can be VERIFIED, then "they" can kiss the whitest part of my ass. And for that matter, who exactly is "they"? "They" is the fiction. How does a fiction dictate what I choose to do in my life? How can a fiction compel anyone to act? The problem with the actors in the fiction are that they find truth in authority when they should be getting their authority from the TRUTH....
Statues, by-laws, codes, acts, all that crap.... it doesn't apply to us as flesh and blood, it applies to only those who step up as surety for the strawman/person. We need to learn who we are, the box has our minds trapped.
"The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more than 50 years."
If you're not moving forward, you're falling behind. So every day, in some way or another, take action to move your life forward.
Just a small improvement, just a subtle positive step, is infinitely preferable to doing nothing. Always, there is some little something you can do to better your life and your world.
What can you do right now to solve a problem that's been frustrating you? What step can you take in the next few minutes that will bring you closer to the accomplishment of an important goal?
There is something you can do, and those small efforts quickly add up as time goes on. So instead of complaining that you can't get it all accomplished at once, do a little bit, and then do it again.
Always, your life is filled with energy, and is moving in one direction or another. Harness that energy, align it with your highest purpose, and proceed constantly in the direction of your dreams.
Incidentally, the health insurance market is far from 'free'. In most states, in-state residents are prohibited from seeking health coverage from out-of-state insurers.
And the reason that health insurance is tied to one's employer is the fault of the govt. When FDR instituted government control of wages – allegedly to fight an economic slowdown – employers competed for employees by enticing them with something out of the reach of the federal regulators: health insurance. Sixty years later, health insurance is wedded to the workplace, fully controlled by the government, and – surprise! – worse than it ever was in the days of fully privatized, free market medical care prior to FDR.
Each person you encounter has hopes, dreams, joys, pains, problems, abilities, interests, things to do and opinions. Though you may or may not agree with or like that person, it serves you well to be respectful and understanding.
The people in your world add great richness to your life. Take the time and care to treat them not as numbers, not as transactions, not as one-dimensional objects, but as real, living people.
Treasure your interactions, and give your full attention to them. Nurture your relationships, and continually build them with love.
Take notice of, acknowledge, appreciate and accommodate not only the people you know, but also those people you don't know who cross your path. Sincerely value those around you, and you'll add great value to your life.
"The bill did not try to dictate what the companies put in their contracts, simply who the government chose to do business with."
Oh yes it did, read the text of it. It doesn't apply to just "new" contracts it applies to "existing" contracts as well, which would be considered dictating the contents of their current employment contracts and forcing them to change them if they would like to continue to receive funding.
"They scream and yell that they are the "moral majority" but do not care about a girl who was gang raped in Iraq by a companies employees under contract with the government."
A little bit of a stretch isn't it? I agree that the amendment, should it have only included sexual assault, was a good idea and that's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the entire contents of the amendment were not disclosed which sheds a new light on the decision whether or not to vote for it. The problem is that there's such broad language in the initial amendment, and it include the broad language from an ENTIRELY different law passed 45 years ago. This coupled with the amendment being thrown in at the last minute were more than likely the cause for the "no" votes, not Republicans being "pro-gang rape", that's a pretty harsh allegation isn't it? Then again, with the damned politicians we have nowadays, anything is possible I guess..
"And a government that is supposed to be "for the people" should not do business with a company that is against it's own employees seeking retribution for being treated wrongly and illegally."
Agreed, nuff said...
"You must be a small business owner, with little to no employees. Do you actually think that this little ammendment would have effected you in anyway?"
Business owner, yes. Little to no employees, not so much.. Anyways, you're right it wouldn't have affected me in any way. However I'm not the type to stand in the corner and say nothing about things that "don't affect me", that's what got our country into the mess we're in now, selfishness. Everything the government does at any time affects all of us in some way. I take the proactive approach and try (albeit in vein most of the time) to make my voice heard where ever I can, including the politicians ears. No, I'm not going to sit down and shut up every time a law comes around that may not directly affect me, and you shouldn't either. This is OUR government, we are NOT THEIR SUBJECTS.
"So your opposition to the amendment is purely based on principal. A principal started over 200 years ago by slave owning individuals who sought to end the oppression of a kingdom, so that they could do what ever the hell they wanted to, and call it "freedom.""
You're damned right my opposition is based of of principal, and I'm happy to say so. There's no integrity within trying to sneak things past other people in an effort to get your own way, that's just plain dishonesty. Your being for the amendment endorses the very dishonesty and corruption that control Washington politics. I would much rather be a man of principals based from 200 years ago, than a cheerleader for underhanded, thug type politics that are destroying our nation from within.
"Freedom is a wonderful thing, but left unchecked it becomes the foundation of an anarchaic society doomed to self destruction. History proves that."
When was this proven? Please inform me because the only history I know shows great societies that have failed from too powerful of a centralized government. Nazi Germany, Rome, Sparta, USSR, and there are many more, less well known but if you like we can even break it down to States within America; NY, CA, NJ, IL, WI, MI, RI, DE, and along with 38 others, mostly blue and wanting the same types of policies you speak of that put "checks" on freedoms...
"The free market is doomed to crash over and over, until someone steps in and restrains it with order."
Yup, and in order for something to get better, it must fail which is called learning. trial and error is still by far the most productive means of conquering the unknown and is the basis of common research, how would an economy be any different.. The anti-trust laws that are now ignored were put in place to prevent catastrophy should a corporation fail, because they would never be deemed "too big to fail".. after the depression our nation did well for while with keeping within it's limits but the politicians started getting creative and tring to manipulate the markets and here we are...
Seems like we got a little off topic here, but these are things that needed to be addressed. Regardless none of this matter. I highly encourage you to look into the previous posts I made last night about the global treaties, that will give you an idea of where w'ere headed and when we get there, none of this will matter...
By the way, thanks for the thought out reply and not some psychobabble rantings of someone who's uninformed...
"To begin, it is NOT under the authority of the Federal Government to dictate the content of contracts between PRIVATE corporations and those they CHOOSE to employ, period. "
I dont know how smart you think you are, but the truth of the matter is, the government can and does control who they do business with. The bill did not try to dictate what the companies put in their contracts, simply who the government chose to do business with.
"The whole concept within this amendment is unconstitutional and lays the groundwork for further intrusion into private enterprise from our all knowing politicians in Washington."
Wrong again. The concept of the bill was to have those in power put their money where their mouth is. They scream and yell that they are the "moral majority" but do not care about a girl who was gang raped in Iraq by a companies employees under contract with the government. The bill did not even attempt to dictate what companies put in their employment contracts. It was a simple proposal not to do business with companies that made employees agree to not sue them under any circumstance. Which is wrong in any sort of way you want to put it. Only a company seeking to take advantage of and bully their employees would have such a clause in their contracts. And a government that is supposed to be "for the people" should not do business with a company that is against it's own employees seeking retribution for being treated wrongly and illegally.
"It's time to clean out the cesspool we call Washington and get people up there that actually CARE about us, and not themselves, getting re-elected, or their own personal interests.."
This is the only part of what you said that I can agree with. I include in the "cesspool" those who would do business with a company that forces employees to sign a contract that makes them completely helpless to do anything about any wrong doing the company may do against them. You must be a small business owner, with little to no employees. Do you actually think that this little ammendment would have effected you in anyway? Do you plan to have gang rape parties of all your female staff? Probably not, or at least I would hope not. So your opposition to the ammendment is purely based on principal. A principal started over 200 years ago by slave owning individuals who sought to end the oppression of a kingdom, so that they could do what ever the hell they wanted to, and call it "freedom." Freedom is a wonderful thing, but left unchecked it becomes the foundation of an anarchaic society doomed to self destruction. History proves that. Not your dated philosophy of freedom of the market. The free market is doomed to crash over and over, until someone steps in and restrains it with order. A healthy economy, regardless of how it is achieved, is the most desirable outcome. If that means not doing business with a company that allows a woman to be gang raped by 17 men in iraq, then kept in a storage locker, so be it.
Oct 20th, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- The White House had high praise Tuesday for the American team in Kabul -- including Democratic Sen. John Kerry -- that played a major role in persuading President Hamid Karzai to agree to a runoff election.
The need for a runoff arose after the U.N. had stripped the Afghan leader of one-third of his votes, citing fraud.
Obama singled out the work of Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, who, the president said, "have been working tirelessly throughout this process."
"I also want to commend Senator John Kerry, who was in the region traveling and ended up working extensively with Ambassador Eikenberry and was extraordinarily constructive and very helpful. So I think he deserves great congratulations," Obama said during a brief meeting with reporters after an Oval Office visit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
In a telephone interview with The Associated Press, Kerry described the evolution in Karzai's thinking.
"President Karzai really deeply believes he had won the election and ... that the international community was kind of conspiring to push for a different outcome," Kerry said by telephone from Dubai. "He had people within his government, people within the election commission who felt they were being insulted about putting together a faulty election process."
"There were a lot of very deep feelings about Afghanistan's right to run its election, its competency in running it and so forth," the Massachusetts Democrat said.
Senior White House officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer details of the negotiations, said Kerry stayed in Eikenberry's residence in Kabul and conducted his work from the U.S. Embassy, where he stayed in close telephone contact with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, National Security Adviser James Jones and special Afghan envoy Richard Holbrooke.
From that base, the officials said, Kerry met frequently with U.N. mission chief Kai Eide and the ambassadors of France and Britain. Kerry's visit coincided with one by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who worked with the U.S. senator.
The officials quoted Kerry as saying the talks in Kabul were not about "the formation of a coalition government, though we want to see people come together" to strengthen Afghanistan "as it moves forward to tackle daunting challenges."
The White House officials insisted that the administration had not been pushing for Karzai to enter a power-sharing government agreement with his former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, who finished second in the fraud-plagued vote.
The new vote was to take place Nov. 7, and officials were hoping the onset of extreme winter weather in the mountainous north and east of Afghanistan holds off until after the second-round election.
------
Associated Press writer Andrew Miga contributed to this report.
Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribute
The relevance to this article to my earlier post is that if the UN has the power to control elections in Afghanistan, an INDEPENDENT nation that is occupied by foreign forces (my personal views on the occupation have no bearing in this post), then where else will their power extend to, given a nation would sign and accept a treaty that came from this "peacekeeping organization"??
People do not recognize the path that Obama is taking us down. Further involvement in such an organization will only mean the downfall of our nation and its greatness as we know it today and in the past.. Nothing within ANY treaty the UN comes up with and we sign does ANY good for our nation as a whole in future years, because EVERY treaty they come up with limits the powers vested in the independent nation known as the United States, the greatest nation on the planet for the past 80 years..
On a side note...
For those of you liberals who are going to come at me with the usual "where was all of this talk when Bush was president?", I will say this..
When Clinton was President I thought that our nation MIGHT have been headed down the wrong path.. Increase in liberalism (welfare/entitlement programs), the wrong types of legislation passed (deregulation of financial institutions, resurrection of the CRA, etc.), and an overall shift from conservative policies (which got us to where we were), to a more liberal "nanny state"..
When Bush got elected, I truly thought it would be the reversal of the more liberal/nanny state government that was (not created) reinvented under Clinton. Since Obama was elected, I have been following our government as a whole (not Republican/Democrat politics) and trying to figure out where they're leading us.. Well, after thinking I was a Republican and just going against the Democrats for whatever reason (mostly because of the name), I decided that I was conservative, and not liberal..
Now with today's political system and the movement toward a global economy/currency/government, it would only make sense for ALL Americans to stand up and realize that such moves will only lead to the redistribution of Americas wealth to the less fortunate nations, via the UN. Such policy changes within our nation will only lead to the ultimate failure of our economy and society as a whole, it's inevitable.. There's no way in hell you can send so much of our GDP overseas while at the same time extinguishing our manufacturing base, increasing consumer costs on energy, shipping, consumer fuel prices, taxes, and basically anything else you can think of to fund such an outrageous idea without destroying the once great economy that made us the richest nation in the world.
For all of you that demonize capitalism, the next paycheck you get that's above minimum wage, thank capitalism. The next time you find a better price at Walmart instead of Target, thank capitalism. The next time you pay $.10 less a gallon for gas, thank capitalism. The next time you get a promotion, thank capitalism. The next time your stock raise in price, thank capitalism. The next time you buy a new car cheaper at Bob Mayberry than Keffer, thank capitalism. You get where I'm going with this....
Capitalism breeds competition because it's entire basis is off of competition. The strongest survive, and the weakest fail. With government interference, innovation stops because the weaker ones of the group are allowed to proceed as if they were truly successful, yet they possess no traits that would otherwise make them that way. This creates an un-natural "bubble" whether it be in population, business, or the overall economic status of a nation because nature isn't allowed to evolve into something better. When the government is allowed to pick winners and losers, everyone loses...
Think about it like pet ownership.. Sounds twisted, right? Well hear me out...
Why is it that most domesticated animals will not survive when left on their own in nature? They're entirely too dependent upon people in order to survive, right? Well let's switch this simple concept over to the government, except people are "domesticated animals" and government is the "people".. Now just as people have taken a while to truly domesticate animals and there are still those that act out in their own natural instincts and attack eachother or people, then are destroyed, how long do you think it may be until the same happens with government?
I have the answer... It already does....
If you kill somebody in cold blood, you're subject to extermination, or the "death penalty". Should your offense not be so bad then you're subject to confinement.. Now should you just be a good person and go to work every day then the government takes a portion of your earnings and lives off of your back as farmers live off of the back of their livestock, people live off of the affection/entertainment value of their pets, and humans prosper off of the domestication of farm animals eliminating the need for basic hunting skills that would otherwise be required to survive.. Now explain to me how this is any different than pet/livestock ownership. You can't, and if you try to, then you truly do not understand the "pecking order" in nature..
Further explanation? Well, you have your regular people who go to work everyday, pay their taxes, and go on about life as if they really are allowed to do WHATEVER they want.. Like ScareCro says, if you want to do something out of the ordinary, you have to ask permission via licensing, permitting, waivers, etc. Well most times if your pet tries to do something they don't normally do, you chack on them and see if you approve, right?
Ok, so we have the permission covered.. Now lets say that you really want to learn the animalistic ways of a human including survival, authoritarian roles, acts of war/fighting, etc. then what do you have? The military and law enforcement, even politics depending on what exactly you would like to do. however in order to do so, you have to have PERMISSION from the government to do so.. Remember Michael Vick? Well he gave his dogs permission to fight through a structured and confined program, that also did not allow the dogs to attack humans... Sound familiar?? Anyways, this is all a result of evolution of the human race and I'm sure you can figure out where I'm going with this..
You want to ask how this all relates to what I had said earlier with global warming, the UN, and the global climate change treaty? Well just like any other evolution, the governments throughout the world that oversee industrialized nations have come to a point where they have just about TOTAL control over their citizens and now have to progress. The laws of nature would say that once you have gained control over a single nation, the only place to progress would be other nations, if not the world in order to satisfy the natural urge of progression in nature and having to be better than your predecessors. Well this could be where the UN came from, and global climate change is the Trojan horse to get everybody to comply with them. Remember, evolution takes innovation and traditional means of global dominance were squashed with Hitler.. Obviously war does not fare well within the rest of the world, so what's the next best way?? Well as Chriss Angel would say, "misdirection".....
Just think about what I just said for a minute before calling me a "right wing lunatic", it will make sense and if you doubt me or need further clarification as to my entire point, I will be glad to answer...