Judgment Day: Damnation or Salvation

No, it’s not July 29, 2019 and Skynet is not going to destroy the world.
But it still might. Only Skynet is the Democrat Party.
Today, you either vote for the salvation of this nation (against the Democrats) or it’s Damnation at the hands of Progressive Ideologues who will do even more damage than they have if they retain power.
For Liberals are so full of their own superiority that lying, cheating and being completely amoral and unethical in their pursuit of their Progressive Utopia is all for your own good because you’re obviously not intelligent enough or enlightened enough to understand just how magnificent they are. How beneficent they are. How vastly superior in every way that they are.
So they have to win at any cost, by any means necessary.
It’s for your own good.
Now faced with that, that is what must be repudiated today.
Not that the liberals will understand that. Oh no, narcissism on this level will not understand the slap down they should get today.
That’s your fault, for not being as enlightened and as wise and wonderful as they are. You neandertal!
You racist. You bigot. You Teabagger!
You “enemy” (In an interview Monday with radio host Michael Baisden, Obama said he should have used the word “opponents” instead of enemies.– well that’s some progress…:) ) Obama said. “What I’m saying is you’re an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different.”
He changed in the middle of the paragraph again! He does that.
“I think I see a path, as clear and as direct as a ray of light, which leads to the attainment of that object,” George Washington wrote. “Nothing but harmony, honesty, industry and frugality are necessary to make us a great and happy people.”
Have we ever in American history seen a group of politicians for whom frugality is of less value than the Democrats now running Congress and the White House?
The region where an illegal immigrant murdered an Arizona rancher six months ago remains plagued by Mexican drug-cartel violence yet the Obama Administration has chosen to spend $52 million on restoring habitat damaged by the border fence rather than secure the area. (Judical Watch)
Want more? Vote Democrat!

With unemployment still at a severe high, a majority of states have drained their jobless benefit funds, forcing them to borrow billions from the federal government to help out-of-work Americans.
A total of 33 states and the Virgin Islands have depleted their funds and borrowed more than $38.7 billion to provide a safety net, according to a report released Thursday by the National Employment Law Project. Four others are at the brink of insolvency.(CNN)
But don’t worry, it’s George Bush, the Republicans, “Secret Money” and Corporate America’s fault! Vote Democrat!


Pollster Scott Rasmussen said it best in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:
But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.
That’s never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people.
Voters today want hope and change every bit as much as in 2008. But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish.

In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn’t win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.

Elected politicians also should leave their ideological baggage behind because voters don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.

And that’s the ideological opposite of the Narcissistic Progressive Liberal Democrat.
If you think that smart businesspeople will sit around and let our government tax them out of existence before they move their operations overseas — vote Democrat.
If you think it helps you if your boss gets hit with a huge tax bill — vote Democrat.
If you want the American government to be feared by the American people — but laughed at by Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — vote Democrat.
If you want to pay through the nose in taxes until you are 70 so union thugs in purple shirts can retire in security at age 50 — vote Democrat.
If you like the fact that people who actually know the Constitution get laughed at by people who are ignorant of it — vote Democrat.
If you want the entire country to be like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Chicago — vote Democrat.
If you think liberalism and socialism have done a good job of managing the incredibly beautiful and rich state of California, vote Democrat.
If you want a government bureaucrat, who can no doubt access your voter registration records, to determine whether or not you get a hip replacement or a cancer treatment — vote Democrat.
If you want electricity bills to “necessarily skyrocket” — vote Democrat.
If you think civil rights means that all white Americans are by definition guilty and all African-Americans are by definition innocent, vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the dead are voting — vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the felons are voting — vote Democrat.
If you want to vote the same way the Illegal Aliens are voting — vote Democrat.
If you like the fact that our military men and women are being disenfranchised — vote Democrat.
If you think Cuba is a success story — vote Democrat.
If you think insurance companies can lower rates, pay for every small medical item — and every preexisting condition — and every illegal alien — and stay in business — vote Democrat.
If you agree with the French union protesters upset about having to delay retirement for two years to age 62 — vote Democrat.
If you think a rally sponsored by Arianna Huffington, the SEIU, and the DNC is a non-political rally — vote Democrat. (American Thinker)
If you like George Soros, a foreign Billionaire socialist (giving money to a host of originizations including NPR,Huffington Post, Media Matters, ACORN, and many unions and other groups) running your media and your government by proxy– Vote Democrat.
I dare you!
But when you have no freedom and the government controls your every waking moment and your very existence from one second to the next because you voted for the Democrats in 2010 don’t whine to me.
Washington was convinced that Americans had devised the greatest political system ever. In discarded notes for his first Inaugural Address, Washington expressed certainty that senators and congressmen could never “exempt themselves from consequences of any unjust and tyrannical acts which they may impose upon others. For in a short time they will mingle with the mass of the people.”
And “besides,” Washington added, “their reelection must always depend upon the good reputation which they shall have maintained in the judgment of their fellow citizens.”
If through some crystal ball he could have seen today’s Congress, George Washington might have had second thoughts. But the father of our country would be proud to see what “the mass of the people” do today at the voting booth.
The Choice is yours. Choose Wisely. The Future itself hangs in the balance.

Channelling Your Inner Banana Continues

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.
In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.
Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.
Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.
He and the EPA may try to impose by “regulatory” fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.
And by executive orders and the interim effect of an industry-wide “boot on the neck” policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.
By the trick of letting current-law tax rates “expire,” he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America’s borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.
A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.
The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style. (IBD)

I would add a liberal “activist” judiciary that rules from the bench rather than rules based on law. “Social Justice” and global law, not Constitutional law.
Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan is just the latest example. She has no qualification for judicial experience, but she a damn good and loyal social justice advocate.
Add in the wanna be-precedent the Justice Dept is trying to set here in Arizona that says the Federal Government has supreme power over the States.
Ultimate Supremacy is the goal.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has argued that the Wednesday ruling by Judge Susan Bolton demonstrates the need to listen to the president, who pledges to make the immigration initiative a first-year priority but has seen it slip through the sizeable cracks in congressional cooperation.
“I think we will talk about the need for everyone involved to step up and solve that problem,” Gibbs said about immigration. “I hope that everybody that’s running for office at a federal level this fall will talk about, after the judge has ruled that this is the purview of the federal government, I hope each of these candidates will discuss what they think and what the federal government must do to deal with it.”
Not after their was a fair hearing, just after the government crushes you under it’s boot…

Add in a Justice Department that will only prosecute you if you are outside of their apparatchik “base”.
And if you’re in an industry, like Oil, that this administration hates?
Watch out! They are gunning for you baby! And in the “nicest” possible way…
Even the simplest of political gestures that are off the ideological  imperative are grudgingly slow.
Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security said the troops would be sent Aug. 1. But now both the National Guard Bureau and the Customs Border Protection says that date was when they were directed to start ramping up their numbers.
Arizona lawmakers shook their heads in disgust.
“This administration seems to promise a lot and then when you get into the fine print, it just doesn’t happen,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has called for 6,000 National Guard troops.
Asked whether he had been briefed on what role the troops would play, McCain said, “We have not been briefed, and we have asked for briefing both in writing and verbally, and the answer is,’we’ll get back to you.’”
A total of 524 will be stationed in Arizona, with 250 in Texas, 224 in California and 72 in New Mexico. An additional 130 will serve in “command-and-control” and other support positions.
Boy that will scare the illegals and the drug cartels!
You think it stops there: Oh no, dear reader not by a long shot.

You send your kids to Public School everyday trusting that those who influence them for more hours a day than you do, are honest, trust worthy and are only interested in teaching the ABC’s and 123′s.
Well for most teachers I believe that is the case, but for those in the NEA who are involved in “Grass Roots” organizing, they may have been influenced by a little more than reading, writing and arithmetic.
According to the NEA website, the Radical Communist Saul Alinsky’s Book, “Rules for Radicals” is recommended reading to all of their members :
” of our Association who are involved in grassroots organizing, especially Association Representatives (ARs) — also known as building reps or shop stewards — and leaders at local affiliates”
The NEA describes Saul Alinsky as : “the father of, and pre-imminent expert in, grassroots organizing”
So if you can’t get the adults go for the children!

“Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform.”

So Alinksy’s concept of radically changing society was not to have a Revolution overnight but to infiltrate the “Institutions” such as Unions.. Like the NEA. So that from these areas of influence they may introduce “changes” to Society. Or in the NEA’s case, possible influence over future generations.
Now the NEA does try to say the reason that they feel they can recommend Saul Alinsky’s books is because a Conservative wrote a book called “Rules for Conservative Radicals” using Saul Aslinsky’s work as a template. Therefore the NEA is being non-partisan in making the recommendation.
But what they fail to mention is that the only reason an Author wrote “Rules for Conservative Radicals” is because the left in this country have been using Saul Alinksy’s books as a blueprint for their political activity. So in order for the right to counter Saul Alinsky’s tactics they must first know them. So the NEA’s attempt to make the works of a radical communist a recommendation for their members a non-issue fails miserably.
So where have you heard the Liberal justification, “But Mom, they did it to!”??
Bush anyone?
He’s both the Devil incarnate and the Excuse Incarnate.
It would be one thing if a teacher read it on their own, but for an organization that has such influence over your children to recommend such a radical piece of literature to their members so that it may help them with their jobs as a Member of the NEA is disturbing….at the very least.

This past week, Secretary of (Re)Education Arne Duncan said at the National Press Club that he’d like to have schools open 12 to 14 hours a day and 11 to 12 months out of the year musing aloud that he wanted to have your children for an extended period to help them “compete internationally.”

“oppressive hegemony” of the capitalist social order “reproduces” itself through the traditional practice of public schooling-critical pedagogy’s fancy way of saying that the evil corporations exercise thought control through the schools.-Maxine Greene, a mentor of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers who was friend and financial and political supporter of Candidate Obama.

Greene told future teachers that they could help change this bleak landscape by developing a “transformative” vision of social justice and democracy in their classrooms.
Social Justice? So where have I heard that lately. :)

Everywhere in the Liberal media and is that related to the Racial Justice Director at that Tucson YWCA? You Betcha!

Big Brother wants you’re young.

They should portray “homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder’s choice.” In other words, they should turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists. (American Thinker 2008)

It’s funny that America never had a problem excelling until secular progressives, with their Marxist bent, became the pace car for the public school system. (Doug Giles)

“We’ve created a sector rooted in the assumption that every single year there would be more money than there was the year before,” Rick Hess, an education policy analyst and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute said. “It’s as if nobody ever imagined that they’d ever have to cut spending.”
“It’s amazing how in education, we keep telling ourselves we’re about the kids. But then we have to shorten the school year because we can’t imagine, heaven forbid, how to trim salaries,” Hess said. “It just strikes me as irresponsible management.”
Or cut extra-circular activities, etc.
Then add in the stories I mentioned previously about the Girl Scouts are effectively crack dealers for fat, Salt is evil and bake sales are banned at schools because they are politically incorrect to the Food Police.

What you have is oppression from all “fairness” corners.
And under all this, the Secretary of Education wants to EXTEND the school day!
So where’s the money coming from, it sure as hell won’t come from administrative cuts?
Bend over!
Sound familiar?
But don’t worry, We are from the Government and we are here to help you and protect you– from yourself!

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”– George Orwell

The Ideological Deficit

The Democrats have found a new “religion”.
Complain about spending too much, only if it’s against their ideology.
And for no other reason.
Take the “Bush” Tax cuts.
The democrats know that the tax increases from this will hurt the economy badly, but because it’s Bush, they can’t stomach extending them so they play the “deficit” card which is hilarious since they just spent weeks bashing the Republicans for being “mean” and “heartless” because they wanted the unemployment benefits extension paid for instead of adding to the deficit!
In the end, the Democrats just passed it anyhow.
So they can raise the deficit for unemployment benefits (now going over 100 weeks straight with the average being 37) but keeping a tax cut with Satan’s name attached to it is not worth adding to their massive spending.
New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.
That’s taking partisan ideologicial politics to a new low.
The Democrats are effectively saying, if it doesn’t benefit them politically it’s not worth doing.
I also think they want to saddle the Republicans with it.
They know they are going to lose massively in November so what better way to play it than stick your opponent with the mess and then when the 2012 tax season rolls around and people are hit full-on in the face with the 2011 income tax increases you can have “sympathy” for them in the 2012 Presidential election and make it look like it was all the Republicans fault.
Or Bush’s fault.
Now is that too cynical?  I think not.

Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something’s done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax — that will be real killers.
Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade.
But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. The effect this will have on hospital life-support systems is already a matter of conjecture.
Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn’t the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it’s not just the rich who will pay.
The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.
Yes, it raises taxes on anyone who pays taxes, Period. Even the “poor”. So I guess he wants  to pander to the 47% who don’t pay taxes, women, and minorities in his apparatchik class and everyone else can just screw themselves…
But the damage doesn’t stop there.
The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33% — to 20% from 15%. The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% — a 164% increase.
Both the cap-gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8% Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000. Other tax hikes include: halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.
Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.
But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This “second wave” of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:
The Medicine Cabinet Tax. Americans, says ATR, “will no longer be able to use health savings account, flexible spending account, or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).”
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. “This provision of ObamaCare,” according to ATR, “increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10%.”
Brand Name Drug Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018. Beginning in 2019 it falls to $2.8 billion and stays there. And who pays the new drug tax? Patients, in the form of higher prices.
Economic Substance Doctrine. ATR reports that “The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks ‘economic substance.’”
A third and final (for now) wave, says ATR, consists of the alternative minimum tax’s widening net, tax hikes on employers and the loss of deductions for tuition:
• The Tax Policy Center, no right-wing group, says that the failure to index the AMT will subject 28.5 million families to the tax when they file next year, up from 4 million this year.
• “Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly deduct, or ‘depreciate’) equipment purchases up to $250,000,” says ATR. “This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be ‘depreciated.’”
• According to ATR, there are “literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place,” plus the loss of some tax credits. The research and experimentation tax credit will be the biggest loss, “but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.”
• The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be available and there will be limits placed on education tax credits. Teachers won’t be able to deduct their classroom expenses and employer-provided educational aid will be restricted. Thousands of families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.
Then there’s the tax on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance (the tax the administration initially said wasn’t a tax but now argues in court that it is) plus a 3.8% Medicare tax beginning in 2013 on profits made in real estate transactions by wealthier Americans.
Not all Americans may fully realize what’s in store come Jan. 1. But they should have a pretty good idea by the mid-term elections, and members of Congress might take note of our latest IBD/TIPP Poll (summarized above).
Fifty-one percent of respondents favored making the Bush cuts permanent vs. 28% who didn’t. Republicans were more than 4 to 1 and Independents more than 2 to 1 in favor. Only Democrats were opposed, but only by 40%-38%.
The cuts also proved popular among all income groups — despite the Democrats’ oft-heard assertion that Bush merely provided “tax breaks for the wealthy.” Fact is, Bush cut taxes for everyone who paid them, and the cuts helped the nation recover from a recession and the worst stock-market crash since 1929.
Maybe, just maybe, Americans remember that — and will not forget come Nov. 2. (IBD)


And there’s always the Tax that isn’t a Tax because it’s a “penalty” but in court it’s a Tax– The Health Care Mandate.


After all, known communist and fired “green Jobs czar” Van Jones recently said:
While the federal government sinks deeper into debt than any time since World War II, former White House “green jobs” adviser Anthony Van Jones said it was time to stop worrying about budget deficits and pressure Washington to take more money from American businesses to fund larger social and infrastructure projects.
“This is a rich country. We have plenty of money, and if you don’t believe me, ask Haliburton,” Jones told a group of progressive bloggers and activists at the Netroots Nation (Think Far Left Hatefest) convention Friday. “There’s plenty of money out there; don’t fall into the trap of this whole deficit argument.”
“The only question is how to spend it,” he added.

Speaking of spending remember TARP, that bailout that was supposed to save the universe and create jobs?
Well, not so much.
How’s that Troubled Asset Relief Program going? Not so well. A review of TARP found that homeowners aren’t avoiding foreclosure and the decisions to close car dealerships were politically based.
The Home Affordable Modification Program, infused last year with $50 billion in TARP money by the Obama administration, was supposed to help 3 million to 4 million mortgage holders with their problem loans.
But according to a government audit, it has failed to “put an appreciable dent in the foreclosure filings.”
Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, told Congress on Wednesday that fewer than 400,000 homeowners have had their mortgages permanently modified under the program.
“It’s just not a program that’s working for homeowners,” Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of a panel charged with overseeing the bailout, also told Congress on Wednesday.
“It’s not a program in some cases that’s working for investors. And most importantly, it’s not a program that’s working for the economy over all.”
Warren, who resides on the other side of the idea spectrum from us, said the problem with the program is “It’s too slow. It’s too small.”
But at least we have $20 Billion dollars in signs touting how great it is (each sign cost $10,000 a piece).
Her position is based on a faulty assumption: that the federal government, which is rife with fraud, waste and corruption, is able to effectively implement even a small program. She is expecting an unwieldy bureaucracy to do something that it cannot — and should not — do.
Another function of TARP, the auto dealership closing program, also took criticism in the review. More than 2,000 dealerships were closed as a cost-cutting measure in Washington’s bailout of Chrysler and General Motors. But the closings weren’t business decisions. They were political.
And they cost jobs.
“Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact,” said Barofsky’s 45-page report.
According to the audit, the Treasury Department, which administers TARP, simply failed to show how the dealership closings were “either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery.”
The Barofsky report says some GM “dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships.”
Further underscoring TARP’s institutional problems is Barofsky’s finding that the government has been throwing taxpayers’ money at the country’s financial system that it wasn’t authorized to spend.
“Indeed, the current outstanding balance of overall federal support for the nation’s financial system has actually increased more than 23% over the past year, from approximately $3 trillion to $3.7 trillion — the equivalent of a fully deployed TARP program,” says the report.
The money has been allocated “largely without congressional action, even as the banking crisis has, by most measures, abated from its most acute phases.” Worse, much of the unauthorized expenditures was doled out to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-government mortgage institutions that are largely responsible for the 2007-08 financial meltdown.
Fannie and Freddie were explicitly excluded from the “financial reform” package.
It’s no coincidence that TARP has been a big part of one of the ugliest economic eras in American history.
We wouldn’t be surprised if historians one day look back and find that TARP was a significant contributor to the depth and length of the current slump.
Unless you’re a Journo-List Media biased ideological “journalists” or historian that distorts the facts to suit Big Brother’s Ideological Agenda that is.

---

The Democrat Strategy for 2010 Part 1: History & Media Bias

November 2010.

The most important election in American History.
And the Democrats know it.
So, get ready for anything goes.
Because after all, the end justifies the means.
There will be all out Nuclear Race War.
Class Warfare.
Bush Derangement Syndrome will be epidemic.
You’ll up to the sky in kitchen sinks.
Nothing will actually be off limits.
Everyone of you who even hints at disagreeing with them is a Racist or an Uncle Tom.
You know who you are.


And The Mainstream Media will be right there in their propaganda roll as the Ministry of Truth.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Think how underplayed the greatest lie of the Obama administration is being ignored, That of the Health Care Mandate as a Tax then you get the idea.
Then it came out this week that many in the News Media (not just “commentators”) actively and with political forethought deliberately ignored, suppressed or actively worked against the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story when it broke and actively worked to get Obama elected in general by hook or by crook.
Absolutely no “objectivity” or “journalism” need apply.
Did you notice how fast it disappeared?  And anyone who brought it  after that was…<>…A RACIST!
And if you disagreed with Obama, you were de facto a Racist?
Then after he was elected the Tea Party sprung up, and guess what, they were Racists too!!
It was no accident. I was a calculated plan by the very journalists themselves.

Someone found a forum where “journalists” hung out and said what they really think.
But don’t expect to here it on the Mainstream Media, the very people who were saying it.
Daily Caller: It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.
According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Specifically, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Ackerman wrote on the Journolist listserv in April 2008. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
ABC being the “tough questions” asked of the President about Rev. Wright in April 2008, just after it broke.
How dare they! That must be stopped!
The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.
The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”
Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.
In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.
Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.
Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”
The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.
Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.
It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.
(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)
Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.
“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”
Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.
“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”
(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”
Karl Rove played down the notion that members of the mainstream press agreed with Ackerman but he said he found it curious that such talk was tolerated within the group. It was important, he added, not to judge the motives of members who chose not to respond.
“I thought it was a revealing insight in the attitude of one minor player in the D.C. world of journalism,” Rove said of Ackerman’s comments. “It’s an even more important insight into a broader group of more prominent journalists that they seem to be willing to tolerate the suggestion that they should all tell a deliberate lie or that they should take somebody’s head and shove it through a plate glass window. I would hope that somebody would say, ‘Mr. Ackerman, do you really believe we ought to fabricate a lie about people just because we don’t agree with them?’”
Barnes added that even if there was an effort on the left to smear opponents as racists, the plan wouldn’t work.
“The charge has been made so often without any evidence that it has lost its sting,” he said. “It has become the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.”

Interview on FOX: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/publisher-neil-patel-chats-with-megyn-kelly-about-journolist/

And Now Part II: The Enemies List

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”
Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”
Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”
“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”
On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.
When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air…
“If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

A comment on the website after the stories summed it up beautifully:
This expose simply confirms what many of us have known all along. Liberals in the MSM are rigid idealogues who write for each other. They passionately believe they are on the side the angels while conservatives are just plain evil. In their world the ends justify the means and advocacy journalism is their contribution to advancing the cause. They are no better than the “journalists” who wrote for TASS or PRAVDA and their mindset is as rigid and narrow as what you would find in areas where the Taliban has complete control. 

Excerpts: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/

Tomorrow, the question will be how do you fix voters…CHEAT like You have CHEATED before!

One Hint: The Electoral College is Evil and must be stopped!

Getting in Touch with Your Inner Banana

I will explain the title in due course.  So bear with me. there’s a bit of a set up needed.

Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geithner:  US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.
He said that other major economies would have to grow more for the global economy to prosper.
We are now declare The United States Not to be a Super Power and a World Leader, so piss off!
Yes, that’s the demoralizing sound of the White House spreading more malaise.
Welcome to Carter Malaise II: The Intentional Sequel.
In other words, don’t expect the engine that has been the driver for the world economy for over a century to keep up the pace.
This fits with President Obama’s conviction that the U.S. is no more extraordinary than any other country.
We’re nothing special. We are just another country of many. Nothing to see here, move along…
Everyone is equal and no one is better than anyone else.

“I believe we must each start by setting out plans for getting our national finances under control,” New UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was tossed out this week BY HIS OWN LABOR PARTY.
He was replaced by his deputy Julia Gillard, who became the story of the day by becoming Australia’s first woman prime minister.
It was a bad fall for the man dubbed Australia’s Barack Obama.
Like the latter, the youthful Rudd initiated costly health care, home weatherization, entitlement, and global warming pork barrel projects. In the process, he blew out the Australian budget.
When the time came to pay the bill, he effectively committed political suicide by calling for a 40% tax on Aussie mining companies.
Those firms form the backbone of Australia’s dynamic economy, accounting for half of its exports. As Rudd imagined that it was he who kept Australia out of financial crisis, the reality was it was private firms like these that created the value and jobs for Australians.
When news of Rudd’s tax hikes suggested a bid to expropriate companies’ profits, the stock market took a beating.
To pay for his own bloated government programs, Rudd claimed — as his union supporters did — that he only wanted companies to pay their “fair share.” Unions themselves added to the fantasy by claiming these taxes would create jobs. Rudd echoed that, absurdly claiming the tax would be good for the economy.
“It is important to pay emphasis on the independent modeling of Treasury who’s put all the factors together and projects this industry will grow by 6.5% over five to 10 years,” Rudd told incredulous mining executives from BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Fortescue last May as stocks fell. “As a result of (this 40% tax) we will see a better and more dynamic mining industry in the future.” (IBD)


Beginning to sound familiar??
The Full on Socialist German State:
German leader Angela Merkel believes that the massive spending President Obama is advocating is not right for her country to undertake. Merkel, sounding and parroting the familiar refrain of Conservative Republicans, is a proponent, at this juncture, of curtailing spending and sees merit in the German engaging in more savings. President Obama on the hand wants the major economies like that of Germany (ranked number 4) to emulate the profligate spending him and the U.S. lawmakers – at least the Democrats – have contributed to the world money supply. President Obama also wants Germany to curtail its forays into exports and focus it fiscal policies on consumer spending so as to spur economic growth.
Chancellor Merkel may not be operating on her own accord concerning the fiscal policies that she is currently championing like any astute politician, Merkel may be listening to her people’s voice on this matter. Much of the German people did not support the bailout (110 billion Euros) provided for Greece and (750 billion for the European safety net).
This posture by the German people of disagreeing on their version of bailouts mirrors the angst felt by the Tea Partiers in America.
So the Socialists have had enough of full-on socialism, and what does Obama want?
Full on Socialism.
You have to wonder why European Socialists are worried about debt and spending and Obama is not.
Add in Timothy “We are no longer a Super Power” Geithner’s comments and you start to see where I’m going with this.
I hope.
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has added his voice to the growing discussion about the United States’ recession spending spree.  In a response to President Obama’s call for further international recession spending, Schäuble stated “governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand. Deficit spending cannot become a permanent state of affairs.”

As if there were any doubt about the United States’ spending addiction, Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl explains, “the annual federal budget deficit is projected to reach 8.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020—more than three times the historical average.”
This means that if the US wanted to balance the budget by 2020, one-third of all spending would need to be eliminated or taxes would need to increase by 50 percent.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released its assessment of the administration’s budget outlook. The numbers are shocking. Under the president’s policies the federal deficit will exceed $700bn (€520bn, £467bn) in every year over the next decade. The sea of red ink will more than double the national debt to more than $20,000bn. The upshot is that in 2020, the deficit is projected to be $1,200bn, of which more than $900bn is borrowing to pay interest on previous debt. It is a sorry state of affairs.

So Obama and The Democrats want Financial “reform”.
They want to punish Wall Street!  Those evil, corrupt Capitalist Bastards!
But just like the Health Care “reform” that was more about stealth tactics to eventually kill off the private industry and have you dependent on the government, this too is not about Finances and Wall Street and just another polarized Alinsky tactic.
The upshot: no downgrade in our status as a AAA  Credit nation until interest equals 14 per cent of revenues. (and when it is downgraded the cost of the 13+ Trillion dollar debt goes up!)

Let’s party ‘til 2014 because in the Obama administration budget, D-Day (Downgrade Day) is 2015 when the magic number reaches 14.8 per cent. Moreover, the plan is not merely to flirt with modest deterioration in creditworthiness. In 2020, the ratio reaches 20.1 per cent. The US is on track for a junk-bond bonanza.
Just after 2014 when all the Health Care taxes come into full force and by then private health plans will likely be near extinction.
Coincidence?
I think not.
It’s just another takeover, but in the 2000+ plus throw the frog in cold water and then boil him slowly to death kind of way these Democrats seem to prefer.
Hell, they don’t even READ their own damn bills!
And it’s brought to you by Barney Frank and the retiring Chris Dodd, the guys who created the Mortgage mess!!
So the fox is going to save the chickens in the chicken coop!
Some Highlights
The Power to Unwind:
The FDIC would have the authority to liquidate failing firms while the Treasury Department fronts the money to do so. There would also be a repayment plan so that taxpayers are guaranteed to get the money back (and where does the government get the money??? You’re looking at his computer!).
So if the government “deems” you failing, you get taken over and sold off.
Gee, that can’t be abused at all can it!
Financial Stability Oversight Council:
The council would monitor systemic risk across the entire financial system and make recommendations to the Federal Reserve to alleviate that risk. The ten-member council would include the heads of the federal financial agencies.
Corporate America’s Sith Overload. What do you bet they will be political appointees?
Just like the Oil Spill Investigation commission that has a bunch of left wing environmentalists and not one Engineer or Oil Businessperson!
They would never use any of those Chicago tactics on them, now would they…
The government also gets to decide what is a “financial” firm. Does GM, which makes loans, fall into that category? How about Wal-Mart, which issues its own credit cards?
In effect, this lets the government seize and dismantle the assets of almost any company — and then force others to pay for it.
Fannie/Freddie:
Republicans biggest beef with the whole bill is that it does nothing to address the problems, and sustainability, of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For instance: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were in arguably at the heart of the financial crisis, and which have already cost U.S. taxpayers $146 billion (with hundreds of billions more on the way), aren’t addressed in this bill at all.
The major reason for the collapse in the first place gets ignored!
Wonder Why?
Oh, that’s right, it’s government owned, heavily in debt, and guaranteed to be bailed out! (by you of course!)
Just Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security!
No problems there!
No Resolution Fund:
The House wanted to create a $150 billion fund to pay for any future bailouts. The fund would be paid for by the banks. This provision was gutted. Conferees agreed that this could only be created after a massive collapse. This is the fund that Republicans successfully painted as a permanent bailout fund when Democrats in the Senate tried to include a similar, but only $50 billion, fund.
And the Republicans were right. Can you say, slush fund!
Any bank that runs into trouble can still walk up to Uncle Sam’s borrowing window and, hand outstretched, ask for money. And if the bank is politically connected or very large, it will get it.
The bill also creates a new agency inside the Federal Reserve that will have extensive power over consumer lenders. Hold the applause, because likely new limits on checking account fees and interest on credit cards will mean less access to credit, not more.

So you have less credit available, you have new regulations and new taxes, an Oversight committe that can swoop in and shut you down, and Health care cost are going to skyrocket under ObamaCare.
Sounds like a great business climate to me. Sign me up.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.
Because the Government is going to intentionally, “for your protection” get in the way of business even more now than before.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economic recovery won’t be catching fire any time soon.
Businesses and governments are likely to reduce spending in the second half of the year. Consumers, who drive most economic growth, aren’t expected to take up the slack.
The Commerce Department said Friday that the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the first quarter, offering its third and final estimate for the period. It was slower than initially thought because consumers spent less and imports rose faster that previously calculated.
Economists anticipate even slower growth ahead as companies bring their stockpiles more in line with sales. Factory output has climbed this year. But it was driven more by businesses replenishing their warehouses after the recession and less by consumer demand.
“The economy is growing, but still at a disappointingly slow pace,” said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities. Take away businesses restocking their inventories and “you still have a lukewarm recovery,” he said.
Other factors could hold back growth. Federal government stimulus spending is expected to fade. The European debt crisis could slow U.S. exports and world trade. And state and local governments are likely to rein in spending and raise taxes as they struggle to close budget gaps.
“This is still the weakest and longest economic recovery in U.S. postwar history,” said Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics.
High unemployment and tight credit have kept consumers from ramping up their spending as in past recoveries. The housing industry has played a big role after previous recessions. But this time it is slumping and subtracting from economic growth.
Most economists expect the unemployment rate, currently at 9.7 percent, to remain above 9 percent through the end of the year.
The economy has grown for three consecutive quarters after shrinking for four straight during the recession — the longest contraction since World War II.
And Stimulus III is on the way. After all, the previous ones were a roaring success!! So let’s do it again! and again! and again!!
Another part of the bill, and one that’s gotten little attention, makes changes to the amount of capital banks must keep to back up their loans. Banks eventually will be forced to raise more capital, or to reduce their lending. It also gives the government oversight over the $600 trillion derivatives market, without telling us what the rules will be. That, no doubt, will be left to bureaucrats. (IBD)

And they do a bang up job of it, always.

Add in that the Government has taken over Banks, Car Companies,Insurance Companies, and now wants to micromanage the financial sector.
So they want to decide who lives and who dies (Health Care)
Who is employed, by who whom and how that company operates. And if they don’t like it, they will swoop in “for your own protection” and save you from the evil capitalist exploiters.
Unions, especially Government Unions get special perks, deals and exemptions.
They are actively trying to destroy the Oil Industry (the moratorium) so they can take that over because “it’s too big and too important fail”. But if we help it fail, that’s ok.
Medicare and Medicaid  and Social Security are bankrupt. Fannie and Freddie are a bottomless pit.
The Congress wants an Internet “kill switch” for cyber-terrorists (terrorists being Right-wingers according to Homeland Security Secretary Napalitano last year)
Taxes are going up in 2011 by large amounts.
New taxes from ObamaCare start in 2011.
Unemployment may permanently be around 10% some economist are saying if everything remains as is.
50% of the people don’t even pay taxes.
The only sector of jobs that’s growing is the Public, government sector.
They want “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” aka Amnesty. And will not settle for less.
They are going to sue Arizona for wanting to protect itself.
That’s the Government’s job!
And if you don’t like the fact that they aren’t and don’t care to, tough bovine fecal matter!
We are the Power. Not You!
So they want to control your Energy, you Job, your Boss, your security, your Medical Care, Your Health, your retirement, and your how you make money.
So what does this all mean?
It means we have a President who willfully and with ideological malice wants to downgrade America to not only  ‘just another country’ but a banana 2nd or third tier one to boot. Nothing special.
What our country needs today is an inspirational leader, one who gets what makes the U.S. unique and who’ll boldly lead the nation out of its slide toward despair as he invites the world to climb with us.
What we have is a Banana Republic Dictator Wannabe.
He wants to throw the American People (the frog) in the cold water and boil them to death slowly.
To take over your life completely.
He want’s to “know whose ass to kick”.
Yours.
So he’s in touch with his Inner Banana (Dictator that is!).