When Even the President Shows Desperation

I begin tonight with an apology that I have not been able to reply the last couple of days. My stubborn wrist has not exactly cooperated. It makes it difficult to type, as it takes me about twice as long to type as it normally does. After spending the day at work, I came home this evening to peruse the days news. News always gets more interesting as we close in towards an election. Each side becomes more desperate depending on who is leading. If a Dem is leading a Senate Contest, the GOP candidate is sure to throw out something wild. If a GOP candidate is pulling ahead, the Democrat is sure to have a new scandalous revelation to offer as proof that the opponent is the devil. I have grown used to it, although I openly admit that watching the races convinces me of one thing: Neither one of the two sides is fit to represent the average American in Washington DC. Yet somehow things never change. In fact they just seem to get worse with each cycle. As I said, I have grown used to seeing Senate and House candidates showing their ass and lying through their hypocritical teeth to sway voters. But then today, I saw something that surprised me. I hadn’t expected that the President of the United States would blatantly lie and twist on the campaign trail. Yet there it was.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that the men who are elected President are somehow less likely to lie than those below them. After all, most Presidential candidates were in the lower chambers at one time. And when the President is actually running for office, we see them behave similarly to Congressional candidates. But in general, as I look back through my own memory at Presidential elections of the past 30 years that I have paid attention, it seemed that the Presidential races yielded a “higher level” of decency than the rat races we see for Congress.

Now I know that some of you are jumping out of your seats reading that. But bear with me a moment. There are plenty of shitty moments in Presidential campaigns. We have things like the “swift boat” stuff from the Bush v. Kerry election that are as sleazy as they come. I get that. I don’t mean that Presidential campaigns don’t get dirty. But what you can look back and see is that the candidates themselves don’t do the sleazy stuff. They may orchestrate it. They may condone it. They may even pay for it. But you don’t see them come out and actually be the one to say it. George Bush never made the claims against Kerry. The veterans group did. Barack Obama never said Palin was stupid and it was dangerous to have her “one heartbeat from the Presidency.” The media did that for him.

And there is a reason why this is. In general, the people who are running for the office of the President have to appear Presidential. Getting down and dirty in the trenches is not seen as Presidential. Presidents are as dirty as they come. After all, they rose as the cream of the political crop. You don’t think you become the most powerful person in the dirtiest profession in America by being the lone “clean” guy, do you. Of course not. But what Presidents do is appear to be different than other politicians. They appear to be more refined, more composed, more dignified, more Presidential. The people have to believe that the man they select to lead the Executive Branch is a better person than those in the Legislative Branch. That he (or she) is above the pettiness and the partisanship and the back door dealing and the corruption.

Think about this last election of Obama. He ran on a campaign of “Hope and Change.” That was appealing. He promised to change the way that government did business. He promised to get both sides to work together to solve America’s problems. He promised to eliminate the back door dealing and secrecy with new complete openness. In short, he promised to be everything that government currently was not. He presented an image of himself that was above the rest of the politicians, different from them. He presented himself as Presidential. And American bought it. Of course, time has shown that it was all a sham. He is just as partisan, just as secretive, and is in no way different than any of the other Presidents before him in terms of being a regular politician. He has proven since assuming the office that he is not Presidential.

But today I saw him take the next step down on the ladder. The President spoke at a rally in Philadelphia. And the message he brought forward was equivalent in stature to the swift boat stuff from 6 years ago. He took the podium and made some outlandish accusations, including:

So they spent the last 20 months saying no — even to policies that they had supported in the past. They said no to middle-class tax cuts. They said no to help for small businesses. They said no to a bipartisan deficit reduction commission that they had once cosponsored.

I don’t have a problem saying that Republicans are full of shit. I wouldn’t mind him saying these things if these things were true. The GOP did not say no to middle-class tax cuts. They said yes to keeping ALL tax cuts. The anti-industry Democrats said no to extending those tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats are counting on people not actually reading or hearing any news of what actually happened. They did not say no to help for small business. They asked where the money way going to come from. These are spins from the President, and blatantly dishonest. He knows he is lying, but this doesn’t qualify as the President doing something other Presidents haven’t done. These first bunch of quotes are just ones that I wanted to comment on. I will let you know when we reach the one that I felt went too far.

Now, what’s also the truth is we’ve still got a long way to go. The hole we’re climbing out is so deep, the Republicans messed up so bad, left such a big mess, that there are still millions of Americans without work. I want everybody to understand this, just in case there’s still some undecideds out there. Before I was inaugurated and before Joe was inaugurated, we had lost 4 million jobs in the six months before that. We lost almost 800,000 jobs the month I was sworn in; 600,000 the month after that; 600,000 the month after that. Because any of our economic plans were put into place, we had lost almost 8 million jobs — because of their policies.

I am absolutely getting tired of hearing this complete line of bullshit from the Democratic party. The Republicans did not leave us in a hole, drive us into a ditch, or whatever other analogy these bullshitters want us to buy. GOVERNMENT did those things. Republicans and Democrats TOGETHER did those things. It wasn’t 8 years of Bush policies. The last two years were run by a Democratic Congress, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Not to mention that those 8 years included the largest terrorist attack in US history and the bursting of both the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble happened during those 8 years. That Democrats today are attempting to re-write history and pretend that they had nothing to do with it is bulldookey. It ranks right up there with Pelosi attempting to change the tax cuts that weren’t being extended as the “Obama Tax Cuts for the Middle-Class.” (Oh yes she did try to claim that!).

Let’s take a look at the Pledge to America. Anybody read the Pledge to America? Let me tell you, for starters, it turns out that the pledge was actually written in part by a former lobbyist for AIG and Exxon Mobil. That should tell you something right there. You can’t make that stuff up.

Let me ask you something Mr. President. Who wrote the Health Care Bill? How about the Economic Stimulus Bill? Who wrote the “Cap and Trade” Bill that you Democrats seem to love? Which President was it that restricted access to the White House visitors log to hide the fact that the head of one of the nation’s largest unions was a frequent visitor? Which President was it that issued a Presidential decree that no lobbyists could work in his White House and hired a couple of dozen to work in the White House within a few months? What a bunch of hypocritical horse shit. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

It is time that Americans were woken up to the fact that both of the two major parties are completely controlled by special interests. BOTH OF THEM. We cannot allow Democrats to continue to go out there pretending that it is only the Republicans that are in this particular boat. And before you go out thinking that most Americans are smart enough to know that the Democrats are in bed with special interests as deeply as the GOP, I invite you to visit the discussions on the Huffington Post, where you will find that a vast majority of the far left supporters really do believe that it is only the GOP.

We know government doesn’t have all the answers to all our problems. We know the private sector is primarily responsible for creating jobs and prosperity. I believe government should be lean and efficient, and I don’t want anybody in Washington wasting your taxpayer dollars.

You know that the private sector is primarily responsible for creating jobs and prosperity, yet you continue to takes actions that say government is responsible for creating jobs and prosperity. That the President that believes more than any other in “social justice” would pretend that he believes that something other than government is the answer is ludicrous. While he claims that he wants government to be lean and efficient, he has grown government at a faster rate than any President since FDR. He has created more bureaucracy than any President in recent history, thus killing any notion of efficiency. He opines about Bush turning a record surplus from Clinton into a record deficit (while completely ignoring the mini-recession early in the Bush Presidency and the effects of 9/11). Yet he somehow forgets to mention that he took a record deficit from Bush and TRIPLED it in the first year. That’s like calling someone a pig for eating the whole steak while you eat the rest of the cow.

And thanks to a Supreme Court decision called Citizens United, they are being helped along this year by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads — attacking folks like Patrick Murphy, attacking folks like Joe Sestak — just attacking people without ever disclosing who’s behind all these attack ads. You don’t know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose.

Now, that’s not just a threat to Democrats — that’s a threat to our democracy. Every American business and industry deserves a seat at the table, but they don’t get to a chance to buy every chair. We’ve seen what happens when they do. They put the entire economy at risk and every American might end up suffering.

And here we reach the moment where the President loses the ability to be Presidential. Look at what he is saying here. Look at how dishonest his statement is. Look at the speculations he is spouting off as though they are fact. “You don’t know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations.” No, Mr. President, YOU don’t know. To make the claims you are making is nothing more than fear-mongering. You have no idea who is providing the funding that you are talking about. As such, how dare you make such a bold accusation as it could even be foreign companies. When you make a claim like that, you had better be able to back it up with some evidence. But you can’t.

This is a President that has stepped outside of the dignity of the office he holds. A President that decided to get dirty, to play the political games at the level of Congress, which is pretty low. As President you don’t make statements like this. You simply don’t do it without concrete proof that it is fact. He had already shown America that he couldn’t actually perform differently as he claimed he would do. Now he has come out and actually stooped to the level of Congress and the media. His claims are on par with Olbermann, Beck, and Limbaugh.

The move was a stupid one. In my opinion it is moves such as this one that very may well be the true catalyst for his failing in a reelection bid in 2012. He was unknown enough to fool a lot of people into believing he was Presidential in 2008. But by 2012, they are going to be well aware that “Hope and Change” was nothing more than a campaign slogan and his idea of being a different kind of President was that he would remove the caveat of acting Presidential, and instead stoop to the level of the media and Congress.

Given the approval rating for Congress, it certainly seems like a bad association to make for yourself, Mr. President. Shame on you for stepping down to a level below your title.

You can read a full transcript of the speech here (along with the Obamatons “Yes We Can” chants every minute and a half… sheep):   Obama, Biden fired up at get-out-the vote rally in Philadelphia. Transcript – Lynn Sweet

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning All 🙂

    Obama lie? Are you kidding me? His whole life is shrouded in secrecy, and his campaign promises 👿 are the base of his unethical ways. Obama is a lie, and I feel for those that still believe in him, for they have been duped.

    As far as the election, it will serve as some entertainment, and to have adults act like 4 year olds fighting over a toy in a sandbox is both sad and comical. In the end, faces will change, a different colored shirt will be worn and D.C. will continue on as it has. In two years, it will repeat. The results don’t matter.

    Off to the forest for some quality nature time.

    Peace!

    G!

    • Hey G-Man,

      I agree with you. We’ll get plenty of cheap entertainment courtesy of DC while we fall off the nearby cliff. Might as well laugh.

  2. ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline “Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.”

    With the number of advisor’s Obama has lost, he may be having to outsource his campaigning strategy.

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/schieffer-mocks-axelrod-complaining-about-gop-ad-dollars-%E2%80%98-best-you-can-do%E2%80%99

    When Axelrod continued to press the issue, Schieffer said almost laughing, “If the only charge, three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that there’s somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Let’s switch to politics. Last week, of course, the President’s on the campaign trail. He’s on the campaign trail just virtually all the time now. While he was out there, the Democrats put out a– an ad that’s released this morning that blames the Republicans and specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for injecting foreign money into campaigns. The President’s words on the trail last week were, “groups that received foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.” Well, let’s just look at this ad that the Democrats put out today.

    BOB SCHIEFFER: Now I want to ask you about that because the New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isn’t putting foreign money into the campaign. That it does charge its foreign affiliates dues that bring in less than a hundred and thousand dollars a year. A lot of organizations including Labor Unions doing– do that. But the Chamber has an annual budget of two hundred million dollars and it says, along with that, it keeps these foreign dues separate. They do spend heavily in politics, twenty-five million so far. They expect to spend fifty million. But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?

    Great question. As the Times reported Saturday:

    But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

    In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washingtonspin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

    Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.

    In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service. […]

    Richard L. Hasen, an election-law specialist at LoyolaLawSchoolin Los Angeles, said there were legitimate questions about whether foreign money could be making its way into campaigns, particularly because many groups are not required to disclose their donors. But he added, “I’ve seen no proof of the chamber funneling a penny of foreign money into U.S.elections.”

    Readers are reminded: this is from the New York Times. So was this:

    The issue of the chamber’s funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline “Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.”

    The piece detailed the chamber’s overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United Statescampaigns. Still, liberal groups likeMoveOn.org pounced on the allegations, resulting in protests at the chamber’s offices, a demand for a federal investigation by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and ultimately the remarks by Mr. Obama himself.

  3. Obama’s 2008 campaign where untold millions in foreign money flowed into his coffers:

    Obama’s “foreign money” claims are bogus. They’re also pretty rich, considering how his 2008 campaign handled foreign credit cards. From that National Journal story: “The lack of a computerized address-verification system would allow the Obama campaign’s computers to accept online donations from U.S. citizens above legal limits, and to accept donations from foreigners who are barred by law from contributing at all.” Perhaps its time to remind people of that issue again. Oh, wait, I just did!

    Here’s more on that from 2008: “A breakdown of controls has enabled foreign and other unaccountable funds to pour into the Obama campaign — and it’s not an accident.”

    Plus, from the Washington Post: Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations. “Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.”

    More here. “Then there’s the question of whether foreign nationals are contributing to the Obama campaign. There is more than enough evidence to warrant a full-scale investigation by the Federal Election Commission, including the $32,332.19 that appears to have come from two brothers living in a Hamas-controlled Palestinian refugee camp in Rafah, GA (that’s Gaza, not Georgia). The brothers’ cash is part of a flood of illegal foreign contributions accepted by the Obama campaign.”

    Those who live in glass houses…

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/when_it_comes_to_foreign_money.html

  4. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    I would like some change I can buy a soda with.

    • (setting an ambush)

      I just got a informative mailer from the Democratic Congressional Campaign committee warning, “”Here comes Rick Crawford, there goes Social Security”.

      “Rick Crawford’s plan to end SS as we know it”.

      “Would Take Away Our Right to SS.
      SS is a guaranteed right, paid for by Arkansans over a life of hard work.”

      “Makes SS a Welfare Program. Under his scheme,
      SS would be a welfare program for people who can’t work. For everyone else, the guaranteed retirement benefits they paid for and depend upon would be eliminated.”

      What are your thoughts, oh Dreaded Pirate?

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        The Dread Pirate is against all forms of forced wealth distribution. I work hard for my loot and if I wish to give it to a worthy cause (such as supporting those who are unable to work), then that should be my choice, not some politician’s.

        That said, Mathius (of the non-pirate variety) is wholly in support of this concept. Without knowing more, he tentatively supports Rick Crawford’s platform on this topic.

        However, Mathius and I wholeheartedly agree that it doesn’t matter who gets elected, SS is going to remain as it is.

        • What does Mathius think of SS being a “Right”?

          These are the words used by the DCCC, who probably employs a lawyer or two, as well as former media reporters, who are supposed to know what words mean…..

          I could go along with SS benefits being something a person who has paid into being entitled to, but a “right”?

          • I gotta tell you.. I’m not a fan of it.

            I think you have a right to shelter (basic), food (basic), water (clean), heat (if applicable), and sanitation (basic). Beyond that, I think it’s wise to give a little bit more so that people can get themselves out of the situation*.

            I do not think you have a right to sponge off of productive laborers by virtue of your age alone (infirmity != age).

            See, also, my post below.

            *NOTE: This is very different from the status quo.

            • You may well believe that society or man alone has a moral obligation to provide the above necessities but that does not constitute a “right” to the ones who benefit from the charitable giving. You have a right to nothing which you cannot accomplish yourself. Once it is necessary for someone to do it for you or supply it to you- it immediately becomes an obligation on another party. May seem like a small detail to you but the detail is an important one.

              • Canine Weapon says:

                No, and that’s a fair nuance, V.

                I will revise.

                I believe we have a moral obligation to provide the above. I further approve of use of government to ensure this obligation is met on behalf of the society (though I would substantively change the way in which this is done).

                So, yes. You don’t have a right to receive, but I have an obligation to give if I am able.

              • V.H.

                If you are morally OBLIGATED to help me, then why do I not have a right to the benefits of that OBLIGATION.

                If you are obligated then you have no choice but to submit, or in this case provide for me.

                Once you claim such an obligation for society you authorize govt to act on behalf of what is “moral”. After all, you don’t want govt acting in an immoral manner do you?

              • We have an obligation to help if we can, and to a point. If I have only enough food for me, you have no right to it.

              • Mathius

                So is your obligation a “moral” one or not?

                And who decides if “you can” give?

                That is the trap of OBLIGATIONS that carry the weight of MORAL certainty.

              • Yes, I have a choice because I also have a moral obligation to myself and my family-so I have to use these different responsibilities to decide how or if I can or should help in different circumstances. But that of course is my definition of individuals mans responsibility. When it comes to whether or not society as a whole has a moral obligation-well I have been on this site for over a year trying to answer that question-to clear up that contradiction-I have come to some conclusions and I have changed my mind from one position to another and then back again on others-has been an interesting ride. I basically have come to the conclusion that getting rid of the contradiction may well be impossible when one wants to live in a civilized society. In order to be civilized we must protect the weak in our society who cannot help themselves, we shouldn’t allow people to die in the streets from lack of food or medical attention . If we do we may be a free society but we aren’t civilize. So freedom is paramount-I’m not sure there is any societal morality possible without freedom-but being civilized is very important too-so we only compromise if it is absolutely necessary. And if one stands on the importance of freedom they will not make exceptions to that freedom lightly-the help would be small and temporary and only when absolutely necessary. Our country and some of it’s people are taking freedom for granted and moral obligation is being abused but it shouldn’t be dismissed for individual man or society as a whole just because some misrepresent the meaning.

                Some on here argue we need a military-this too takes some of our freedom away-contradictions all-but man living with man-may make small compromises a necessary ingredient if one wants to live in a civilized society.

              • Well said. Well said.

              • If Civilization requires a Moral Obligation on me to care for other whom I do not know, then I prefer to remain a Savage.

              • There are many levels of civilization. There are also many factors that make up a civilized society. Rand’s imaginary society of Galt’s Gulch was very civilized, despite a total lack of charity, but the understanding of trade and freedom and respect for property was such that the people remained civilized. Also it did not hurt that in addition to a lack of crime or laziness, there was also a lack of inability or infirmity, and there was also a low population compared to the resources, as well as the whole thing being hidden from the rest of the world by a combination of remoteness and technology.

                On the other hand, a totally giving society can be either civilized or not, depending on other factors. However, I highly doubt that a totally voluntary action of charity would ever be considered uncivilized unless it was charity specifically to support evil acts or evil people.

                I find those who care nothing for others to be savage. However, I do NOT find caring for others to always equal giving. That, in a nutshell, is the real misunderstanding between those who find charity to be essential to civilized society (especially those who think it should be mandated or have government intervention), and those who think that charity is not always the best policy. In many cases, giving is the worst thing for a person, destroying them by taking their will, by removing the need to strive and thus stagnating the life of the person and perpetuating dependency. It seems that making someone work is not considered by some to be caring, but how is that worse than making someone helpless? Its like the people who shelter their kids so much that they never get the mental and physical strength to handle reality. Improving and even living is always healthier when some effort is in it, in almost every aspect of humanity.

              • You do not have a right to the benefits of a moral obligation because rights have nothing to do with morality. there is no obligation to help, there is a moral obligation to help, meaning you hve the choice to be immoral, at least in terms of that particualr definition of morality. I would define the choice to be moral or not as a right. I have the right to be immoral, I also have the right to determine for myself what is moral and what is not. I do not have the right to force others to abide by my morality, which is why I have no problem with the argument that we are morally obligated to help those less fortunate if we are able, but I do have a problem with such morality being enforced. As far as I am concerned, it is no different than enforcing any other morality. I would no sooner like to see charity forced by government than church attendance. They are essentially the same thing.

                Now, there are other benefits to charity outside of moral belief. As V said, there are factors that make up a civilized society. Caring for each other is one of those. Again, however, a person can choose to be uncivilized, only they may find it is not worth the trouble, since societies that are made up of uncivil individuals do not last as societies for long.

          • who are supposed to know what words mean

            Who are supposed to know what words mean…?

            supposed to?

            You imply they don’t.

            They know exactly what words mean.

            They said what they meant to say.

            It’s dog whistle of a sort. They’re saying “we will protect your unearned income so militantly that we will elevate it to the same level as the right to life and liberty. Therefore, you should vote for us.”

            Did you forget to take your Cynical Pills today?

          • I’ve been paying SS deductions since 1973. Who has more of a right to this benefit, me or an ILLEGAL immigrant? Entitlement my @$$ this is my (Gov’t forced because I’m too stupid to save for my own retirement) money.

      • For everyone else, the guaranteed retirement benefits they paid for and depend upon would be eliminated.”

        GAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

        How many times must I shout this into the Internet before the message gets through?! Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. You didn’t pay for your benefits that you’ll receive*. You paid for someone else’s benefits. Your money? Yea, it’s gone. Poof. I’d tell you to kiss it goodbye, but it never even made it into your hands in the first place – it was diverted straight out the door the second you earned it.

        It was very generous of you to pay for someone else’s retirement, but tell me what gives you the right to demand benefits if you’re still able to work, just because you’re past a certain age?

        Bah humbug.

        *Or won’t receive.. depending on how old you are..

        • Sorry Matt,

          All true progressives think SS is a right, that should be provided to all persons within the US. Along with,

          shelter, (includes heat & A/C, water, sanitation)
          food
          healthcare
          cellphones(started under Bush)
          TV & cable
          (coming soon, transportation)

          • I’m going to have to disagree with you.

            I am a progressive and I do not think that.

            Re health care: I think basic health care may be justified. I’m not sure where I stand on this.

            Re Cellphones: Like hell I do.

            Re TV & Cable: See cellphones.

            Re transportation: Screw that. Use your feet.

            Now….. ok, let’s look at this slightly differently. You have no right to phones, cable (ie, internet), and transportation, but it makes sense for society to give you these things. Without them, how are you going to get a job and get off the dole? I’m sure there’s some saner way of doing this, but people tend to think of my solutions as somewhat draconian.

            • Mathius

              As I have said before, you are a walking contradiction.

              Did it ever occur to you that you ARE NOT a Progressive? Are you so stuck on the false meaning of the name that you don’t recognize it for what it really is?

              I think you are much more a 60-70’s Liberal than a true Progressive.

              • Sorry, my memory of the 60’s – 70’s is somewhat hazy (as it is for a lot of people who were there, I’m sure, but for a different reason).

                I’m going to have a seat over here on the Group W bench and you can tell me more.

              • Mathius

                Here is a summary of the Progressive Party platform aka Teddy Roosevelt.

                The main work of the convention was the platform, which set forth the new party’s appeal to the voters. It included a broad range of social and political reforms advocated by progressives.[4]

                In the social sphere the platform called for

                * A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
                * Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.
                * Limited injunctions in strikes.
                * Farm relief.
                * Workers’ compensation for work-related injuries.
                * An inheritance tax.
                * A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.

                The political reforms proposed included

                * Women’s suffrage.
                * Direct election of Senators.
                * Primary elections for state and federal nominations.

                The platform also urged states to adopt measures for “direct democracy”, including:

                * The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term).
                * The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote).
                * The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote).
                * Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote).

                However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties. The platform asserted that

                To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.[5]

                To that end, the platform called for

                * Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions.
                * Registration of lobbyists.
                * Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings.

                Besides these measures, the platform called for reductions in the tariff, limitations on naval armaments by international agreement, and improvements to inland waterways.

                The biggest controversy at the convention was over the platform section dealing with trusts and monopolies such as Standard Oil. The convention approved a strong “trust-busting” plank, but Roosevelt had it replaced with language that spoke only of “strong National regulation” and “permanent active [Federal] supervision” of major corporations. This retreat shocked reformers like Pinchot, who blamed it on Perkins (a director of United States Steel). The result was a deep split in the new party that was never resolved.[4]

                In general the platform expressed Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism”: a strong government to regulate industry, protect the middle and working classes, and carry on great national projects. This New Nationalism was paternalistic in direct contrast to Woodrow Wilson’s individualistic philosophy of “New Freedom”.

                Roosevelt also favored a vigorous foreign policy, including strong military power. Though the platform called for limiting naval armaments, it also recommended the construction of two new battleships per year, much to the distress of outright pacifists such as Jane Addams.

                Matt, please note the “new nationalism” and the tendency for strong military in foreign affairs. These two major attitudes were picked up by Mussolini in developing his new “third way”.

              • Mathius

                More on Progressivism in the USA

                In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson [1].

              • Mathius

                And finally we have this:

                Liberalism

                The term “progressive” is today often used in place of “liberal.” Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. The reason for this confusion might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, “Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept… that accepts the world as dynamic.” Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.[7][8]

                Cultural Liberalism[clarification needed] is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called “left-wing”[citation needed], in contrast to “right-wing” conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

                American progressives tend to support international economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals[citation needed] In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a “large tent” policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs. Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party. In Canada, liberals usually support the national Liberal Party while progressives usually support the New Democratic Party, which traditionally has had provincial electorial success in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.

                OK, you can get up off the bench now and go back to your regular programming.

              • 🙂

        • Mathius

          To support your assertion I would like to offer a very simplistic mathematical example.

          Assume 12% of annual wages set aside for SS or retirement. No interest on this money is earned because the Federal budget is balanced and we don’t want SS invested in the private market.

          Assume 40 years worked and retire at age 65.

          12% x 40 yrs = 4.8 years of salary saved.

          Assume that you need 50% of annual salary in retirement. I know its a stretch but go with it.

          Given the avg life expectancy of 75 this equals 10 years of retirement.

          50% x 10 yrs = 5 years of salary spent.

          Now of course we won’t address the fact that early years savings are below later years or any of the other factors that make this simple example flawed on the low side.

          The fact is that the AVERAGE person would be out of money 0.2 years before he/she dies.

          Now of course this also means that almost half the people must die at 65 and another half at 85 or sooner so the average person will have enough to almost get by.

          Without the purchase of Govt debt the Soc Sec fund could NEVER have enough to cover retirement, let alone all the other expenses that have been stacked on the program.

          And of course without the Soc Sec fund there wouldn’t be enough money around to run a deficit all the time without printing more, and thus further eroding the Soc Sec fund thus requiring more extensions of benefits and higher rates.

          Oh, wait…………never mind!!!!!!!!!!!

          Just for the record Matt, 4 of my Uncles died while working, all in their mid to late 80’s.

          One was irrigating.
          One was loading hay.
          One was fixing a roof, and died after climbing down the ladder.
          Once was in the outhouse.

          • Hey JAC,

            Glad we agree on something! Good job with the math.

          • JAC, I have a question.

            Being above a certain age is a demographic specification. There is nothing intrinsically (substantively) different between individuals in one age demographic and another that can justify they’re “entitlement” to the fruits of my labor.

            Assuming that you agreed (which I know you don’t, but humor me) with the philosophy of wealth distribution, why should age rather than incapacity be the litmus test for receiving benefits? Why not ethnicity or eye color or height or baldness.

            That is, why is it that there is no benefit for having blue eyes, but there is for being old. Both sets have subsets who are unable to work. Both have subsets who are able to work. Both have subsets who are independently wealthy. Both have subsets who are poor. So what justifies the distinction?

            • Mathius

              I’ll try to answer. The short answer is POLITICS.

              Now for the longer version.

              Assuming I believe in “wealth re-distribution”, I am assuming this is what you meant and not “wealth distribution”, then I would base MY criteria on “wealth”. Obviously, those who are older will have less wealth with time as their costs of living, staying alive, will increase.

              But you see here is the thing. Once I accept the moral value of “re-distribution” I have granted the philosophical premise that it is good and thus needed. I have thus provided the means for the next person to come along and use what ever demographic he/she feels appropriate. All they have to do is change the political debate and re-couch who is US and who is THEM.

              So in the end, any litmus test becomes valid. If you like eye color and baldness then that is your choice. I personally like height. Those over 6.0 feet get the free cookies and the rest have to make it happen.

              Now, the answer to your underlying question is that those who started this belief system had to establish it within our normal cultural values. So who did we normally, that is in the olden days, consider the most deserving of our compassion and charity? The old and the infirm. It was that easy.

              We replaced our religious and human based compassion/charity with Government Welfare. Who was going to deny poor old people or those who were physically unable to work?

              So you see, there is no benefit of one group over another, except that the only way to get the foot in the door was to play off our human nature of compassion and sympathy. Also remember, that these programs were first built because of the Depression.

              Without that economic “crisis” they may have never got these programs approved. Up until then they had not been successful and the Supreme Court had ruled against much of the efforts.

              In case you didn’t know, that is the historical context of the phrase “never let a crisis go to waste”.

              Thus my short answer…….POLITICS.

              More accurately, political ideology combined with long term planning and continued perseverance.

            • Matt,

              It is an assumption that by the time one reaches 65 years, they have paid in a reasonable amount that entitles them to receive benefits. A spouse(homemaker) was assumed to have been paid in by her husband, who died before her.

          • JAC,

            How about the math if you were to invest that 12% in the market, earning interest? I have been told, IRA type investments double roughly every seven years, up that to ten.

            1st $3,000 would be worth $48,000 after 40 years.
            Doing that every year, total contribution of
            $120,000, damn, calculator ran out of numbers.

            Looks to me you would retire a millionaire. Give me the choice, I am pretty sure I can do a better job with my money that the government.

            • To double your money every ten years, you must make roughly 7%. That’s a little high for my estimates, so let’s lower that to 5%. That’s doubling every 14 years.

              Now, if you put in 3,000 your first year, and 4% more each subsequent year (making 5% on the whole thing each year), you end up in year 40 with 705,274.95.

              Not too shabby.

              But if we assume that you’re giving 12% of your income each year, that would mean that you were earning 115,409.10 in your 40th year, so that 700k is really only about 6 years of income.

              Hmm.. saving for retirement is tough.

            • LOI

              A 10% return will double your money in the first 7 years, approximately.

              Formula is simple.

              FV= PV(1+i)^n

              FV is Future Value and PV is present value.

              That is 1 plus the interest rate, in decimal, raised to the power of the number of interest bearing periods.

              So lets check my approximation:

              So (1.10)^7 = 1.948 or not quite 2

              (1.10)^7.5 = 2.0438 or just over 2

              A 10% return over the long run is far to high for planning. I believe the S&P avg is something like 6%.

              Assuming 5% then your first year contribution of 12% (.12) would be equal to about 85% (0.85) of your annual salary by year 40 (.12 (1.05)^40=0.85). That is 85% of the original contribution. So the interest gave you an extra 73% of a year, based on year one wages.

              If my calculations are correct, a 12% contribution each year compounding annually at 5% for 40 years will give you a return of about 14, or 14 years worth of wages.

              So by investing you gained 10 years over the above example without interest. That means if you can live on 50% you now have 20 years before you run out of money……………not counting changes in wages and inflation of course.

              LOI………Here is my big point on retirement.

              In order to live decently in retirement and assuming you can work 40 yrs and retire at around 65 or earlier, you need to save about 20% of your annual wages.

              If your investments go well then you will have a little extra for medical or schooling later.

              So this means the Govt has got to reduce the tax burden by about 20% in order to allow everyone to save the amount needed to eliminate the need for welfare in our later years.

              • How would that compare to the return on investment I get with the government? They take my money, in theory to save for me to use in my declining years. How much do I get with the government investment plan, vs a private investment plan?

                I know, not a fair question. I work and save for myself only under a private plan. Under the government plan, I have to also support those who cannot or will not work.

              • LOI

                And your tax dollars are going to pay the Govt’s return on your savings.

                You are paying a portion of your own interest income.

                So YOUR return is actually much less.

                This of course ignores the fact that a Govt matching fund, or interest payments, does not represent “investment income” in the broader sense. It is either tax money, borrowed money, or printed money. Thus it doesn’t represent a growth in wealth created by you lending your money to them.

  5. How about using government agencies to pressure people, groups and businesses not to donate to your opponent?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    Shutting Up Business
    Democrats unleash the IRS and Justice on donors to their political opponents.

    If at first you don’t succeed, get some friends in high places to shut your opponents up. That’s the latest Washington power play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from participating in politics.

    Since the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they’re now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.

    Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads.

    Mr. Baucus was seconded last week by the ostensibly nonpartisan campaign reform groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, which asked the IRS to investigate whether Crossroads is spending too much money on campaigns. Those two outfits swallowed their referee whistle in the last two campaign cycles, but they’re all worked up now that Republicans might win more seats. Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) affiliate of American Crossroads supported by Karl Rove, is a target because it has spent millions already in this election cycle.

    • President Obama raised the issue in a Maryland speech last week, saying that “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.” Within hours of the ThinkProgress report, the bully boys at MoveOn.org asked the Department of Justice to launch a criminal investigation of the Chamber. In a letter to the Federal Election Commission, Minnesota Senator Al Franken expressed his profound concern that “foreign corporations are indirectly spending significant sums to influence American elections through third-party groups.” From the man who stole his Senate election in a dubious recount, this is rich.

      Even Mr. Franken admits in his letter that the Chamber’s commingling of funds in its general accounts is not “per se illegal,” but apparently he thinks it’s fine to unleash federal investigators because the Chamber cash might contribute to the defeat of fellow Democrats.

      The outrage over the Chamber is especially amusing considering the role of foreigners in U.S. labor unions. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, close to half of the unions that are members of the AFL-CIO are international. One man’s corporate commingling is another’s union dues.

      Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period.

      Democrats claim only to favor “disclosure” of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.

      The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute.

  6. Canine Weapon says:

    I was busy debugging the source code for the Middle East and I found this:

    > if ( Your.God != My.God ) {
    > ( new War() ).start();

    I think this may explain a few things. I propose the following substitute:

    > if ( Your.God != My.God ) {
    > ( new Debate.Civilized() ).start();

    If there are no objections, I’ll just go ahead and patch this. Please note, this may require a restart to take effect.

  7. The amped up rhetoric we are hearing is truly indicative of the lowlifes these politicians are and what they are comfortable with.

    Interesting that BO would even think to go down the foreign contribution route as the blogosphere is going crazy going back to all his suspicious looking contributions that the media and the FEC chose to ignore at that time. Perhaps finally some of the digging and looking into just what and who he is will come out.

    Can’t wait for November 2nd to get here – it is ugly out there and desperate people do desperate things, as we are seeing.

  8. Off Topic,

    MortgageFraudGate is heating up kiddies. BF, could this be The One?

    Zero Hedge has been on top of it…

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/4closurefraud-exclusive-part-deux-%E2%80%93-president-obama-falls-victim-another-robo-signer

    • Cyndi,

      One of many – however! – keep this in mind.

      Anything that does NOT cause disrepute upon the FED is recoverable by more fiat printing.

      The End comes when the FED loses respect.

      • “The End comes when the FED loses respect.” ~ Well then, we’re almost there I’d say.

        😉

        • 10/11/2010 John Lott

          Wow, do you really think that there is any connection here?
          Take these two stories. First that virtually everyone thinks that the Fed is going to increase the money supply.

          Following Friday’s disappointing jobs report, market participants are now virtually certain that the Federal Reserve will announce that it will resume buying assets at the conclusion of its November meeting and do so in a sizeable way, according to an exclusive CNBC Fed Survey.

          Nearly 93 percent of the 70 respondents, including economists, fund managers and traders, believe the Fed will boost the size of its portfolio, up from 69 percent in the survey two weeks ago. . . .

          The second that the dollar’s value is plunging:

          The dollar fell against the euro and yen on Monday after the world’s top finance officials failed to reach a consensus on measures to head off what some see as a looming “currency war”, analysts said.
          The euro reached 1.40 dollars, while the US unit hit a fresh 15-year low against the yen amid growing expectation that the Federal Reserve will pump more money to bolster the struggling US economy, they added. . . . .

          Printing up more dollars and the value of the dollar plunging? It seems like a pretty obvious relationship to me. Someone thinks that there is going to be increased inflation in the future.

          links at,
          http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

          • I’m not sure I understand your question….but I’ll have a go.

            Yes there is a connection. In the next couple of months, things will be so bad, few sheeple will be able to ignore the damage the Fed and politicians are doing. Once the herd feels the pain, they’ll stop believing the lies.

    • Nice find, VH. Just yesterday I was speaking with one of the local entrepanures here on island. She recently purchased the business of a woman who left the island. The new owner is thinking of shutting it down after only two months thanks to all the BS involved in having a small business here(you don’t want to try to have any thing that could be considered a small business here with permission). All US government rules for small business must be followed including a few extra from the Army. Many people have asked me to sew for them but I’d need a license, report to the IRS, etc., all to complete with people who assembly clothing for 50 cents a day in China. Most Americans expect to pay nothing for labor. Why would ANYONE bother to start/keep a small business in America?

      • Just yesterday I received the latest threat of a tax lien on my business. This started 3 years ago, the complaint relating to “unpaid taxes” from 05/06. I thought this had been settled when after months of back and forth paperwork proving I’d paid the taxes..to the point of discovering I’d overpaid and was issued a five digit refund…but I was wrong. Here we go again. It’s further embarrasing because the notices always come on a postcard for the whole world to see that I have a tax lien threat! Well maybe that’s the whole strategy..drive them out of business by harassment. It worked..doors are closing for good 12/31/10 after 57 years!

        • Question: I’ve been hearing that the IRS has been going after political opponents of the Regime. Did you contact your CONgress critter about any legislation? My former co-worker (he got laid-off last month) is getting hammered from the IRS and he is constantly donating money, faxing, writing, etc. against what’s happening.

          • Does a 2 yr membership in NFIB count? Or what about posting on SUFA? Or conservative/ anarchy-ish emails? Precious metal investor? Registered Republican(no more)? That’s about all the trouble I’ve been in.

            • Maybe. I have no proof, just observation and reports….what’s NFIB?

              • National Federation of Independent Business..lobbying group on behalf of small business. No longer a member but the sticker is still in my window.

        • Anita,

          Thus, the platform of any “real” change would be the elimination of the IRS.

          Find a candidate that can survive that platform and vote for him.

          or

          be that candidate.

    • Billions spent in CA but no green jobs
      Greg Halvorson, American Thinker
      A must read by Stephen Moore at American Spectator spells out the tragedy being perpetrated by environmentalists in the failed Golden State.

      Among Moore’s findings:

      -after untold billions in taxpayer subsidies, draconian laws, and government mandates, California can now classify a full ONE-PERCENT of in-state jobs as “green.”

      -a study from the governor’s office concludes that California environmental and workplace regulations have translated to $176 billion in lost output as well as the hemorrhage of four million jobs

      -for every 3 businesses that move to California, 100 bolt like deer to greener (Ha!) pastures.

      Sad doesn’t describe these statistics. To anyone with a wit of common sense, “saving the planet” means destroying America. California is the canary in a coalmine, it seems, which will die alone in a regulated shaft.

  9. V.H.

    You fear free men, so your choice is to enslave them, and justify your enslavement with fallacies of “obligation”.

    The simple test:
    (1) If I did not exist, I cannot be the cause of the pain the Universe delivered to you and thus it is not my fault. As it is not my fault, I have no obligation to you.
    (2) If I do exist, but you do not know I exist, I cannot e the cause of the pain the Universe deliver to you and thus it is not my fault. As it is not my fault, I have no obligation to you.
    (3) If I do exist, but you know me, but I am not the cause of the paint the Universe delivered to you thus it is not my fault. As it is not my fault, I have no obligation to you.

    Attempting to create some sort of obligation where none exists creates evil and destroys civilization.

    • Not that I am arguing with your premise, but #2 is false. I can cause you pain without you knowing I exist. If neither you know I exist NOR I know you exist, then #2 might be true.

      • Jon,

        #2 – no, read again — it is never “Me” causing pain – it is the Universe. That’s the point.

        To declare that I am responsible (ie: obligated) by an act of the Universe on you (you have no arms) can never be true.

        No one would see this obligation if I didn’t exist – the Universe gave you no arms.

        No one would see this obligation if I existed, and you didn’t know I did – the Universe gave you no arms.

        SO how can it be that you know I exist, and suddenly its my obligation that you have no arms!!

        That’s the point.

  10. Of course ” the paint ” was to be “pain”.

    Essentially, if the Universe is the reason you suffer, demand compensation from the Universe, not me.

    • BF: You need to go on a lecture circuit and get your message out to more people. Even if they don’t buy the whole line it would cause a shift toward anarchy now matter what point they start from. It would be a huge task though..look how long its taken you on this site. Where would you even start if that was your cause? Just a rhetorical question.

      • I’d pay to come listen to you…but no more than $20 🙂

      • Anita,

        Thanks for the cheer!

        Then pray to whatever God you have to allow me to not have to work at “my tasks” to feed my family…. like a lottery or an “angel” to provide for them.

        I’d love to speak and write – be a fraction of a Gandhi and walk the world.

        But wife and child need food and shelter, thus I must provide for them before I satisfy my desire to feed “the masses”.

        But also, I would need the backing of a team – like SUFA.

        I wouldn’t need the “support” – I’d need the “brakes” – the intellectual restraint so not out-race what the People could accept.

        You guys “keep it real” – I do see the future – but what is gained if I jump a chasm and leave everyone else behind? I think that is JAC’s point whenever he waves at me across the valley.

        He is Moses, wandering the desert but keeping “the tribe together” whereas I’ve left that tribe long ago.

        But *sigh* I touch upon Isiah’s story – I always hold on to that….

        • Almost made a shout out to you yesterday to catch Glenn Beck. He’s sidetracking about Ghandi and what kind of leader he was. He had a huge posterboard up of a picture of Ghandi but for the whole time I watched (first 20 minutes) he only touched on Ghandi once. Never did watch after the momologue. Maybe you can find a clip online somewhere. On second thought you probably know more about Ghandi than Beck does 🙂

  11. Media bias meets skilled media handler.

    I found an example of two women who are very skilled in their trades that exemplify two things.

    One is left leaning bias in the media, courtesy of Meridith Viera. Note how in this interview she uses the method of making comments, or setting the stage, during the question. The purpose is to get you thinking on line with her opinion before the actual question is asked. In the first question the commentary actually isn’t related to the primary question of whether the tea party is losing steam. It is an attempt to portray the tea party as “social conservative” by linking them to Paladino in NY.

    Second is how a politician who has been well trained in Media Response handles the situation. Stick to YOUR main points regardless of the question. Talk long enough to dominate and prevent further questions you don’t want. Michelle Bauchman has mastered her training based on what is in this video.

    Note Viera’s second line of questioning. She claims tea party candidates can’t close the deal because look at ODonnel in CT. She claims she lost ground due to her public comments. Truth is that ODonnel’s numbers have been low from the start. That was in fact the knock against her. But notice how Viera tries to use ODonnel to classify the tea party candidates but wants to focus on ODonnel only.

    Bauchman shows her skill here. She deflects to the supposed “tea party” candidates who are doing well. Leaving the actual question lying on the ground and reframing once again. Only this time its more effective because it is at least relevant to the question.

    This is great footage. A chess match at fast speed.

    I hope this helps some understand how this is all a big game to those we watch on the nightly news. And how they manipulate the situation for their gain and our loss.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39628063#39628063

    • JAC,

      She is good! I don’t think I could keep my focus like that, would want to respond to the questions drawing me off point.

      Had a problem, msnbc would not let me return here, had to shut down internet for a couple minutes.

      • LOI

        I was able to access and then get back, but was slower than should have been.

        I have noticed that some news stories are impossible to back track from. I have to close my search engine or at least refresh to home page. No clue as to why but I find it aggravating.

    • Great job Michelle! You were schooled Viera!

    • http://www.ericnapier.com/who-is-worthy-of-your-attention/

      Below are some things you might consider when evaluating how to spend your attention:

      * What is this person’s incentive? Does persuading me (or keeping my attention while an advertiser can attempt to persuade me) affect their bank account either directly or indirectly?
      * Is this person asking me to apply reason? Or do they want me to react emotionally?
      * Is this person emphasizing our differences and asking me to think in terms of us vs. them? Or is this person emphasizing our similarities and asking me to cooperate? One favorite tactic of infotainers is to divide people into groups, label them, and then pit them against one another. It sounds like this: “Group x believes ABC” or “group y wants to xyz”.
      * Is this person screaming? Or are they speaking calmly and rationally?
      * Is this person encouraging me to be a better, stronger, higher character person? Or is this person appealing to my base animal instinct?
      * Does this person claim to speak for some other person or organization? If so, are they self-appointed?
      * Does this person have any expertise on the subject in question?
      * Does this person want me to feel empowered – able to help myself and others? Or do they want me to feel like a helpless victim whose problems are somebody else’s fault?

      The next time you find your TV tuned to the news (although it applies to radio, magazines, newspapers, and the interwebs, too), ask yourself these questions.

  12. SUFA, and a special shout out to Buck and Jon

    A few thoughts on what the Constitution means regarding key issues of our day. Courtesy of Mr. Rob Natelson, I give you Commerce and General Welfare.

    Commerce: The Constitution empowered to regulate “Commerce” with foreign nations, among states, and with Indian tribes. “Commerce” means trade in goods and services and travel, as well as some related categories such as navigation and marine insurance. “Commerce” does not include manufacturing, agriculture or other land use, criminal law, the court system, social services, or non-economic activity other than travel. Generally, the Constitution does not empower Congress to regulate commerce wholly within states. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause (see below) Congress sometimes has power to regulate activities that, while not “Commerce,” are intimately connected to foreign, interstate or, Indian commerce, and subordinate to it. See The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” In the Commerce Clause, 80 St. John’s L. Rev. 789 (2006).

    General Welfare: The General Welfare Clause did not confer on Congress any power. It was a limitation on the taxing power granted by the same clause. The general welfare language limited congressional taxes to those whose revenue was dedicated to national (not sectional), general interest (not special interest) purposes. The current belief that the general welfare clause grants Congress power to spend for almost any purpose is based largely on a misunderstanding of 18th century English. See The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: An Essay in Original Understanding, 52 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1 (2003); Judicial Review of Special Interest Spending: The General Welfare Clause and the Fiduciary Law of the Founders, 11 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 239 (2007).

    You can find these and thoughts on other provision here:

    http://constitution.i2i.org/constitutional-nuggets-what-the-constitution-really-meant-about/

    I found the one on conducting business with Indian Tribes very interesting. An entirely different perspective than what was created by the courts.

    • Makes sense to me. Also closes some questions about the widom of the statements. Intersatate commerce I always assumed was related to commerce between states or across state lines to handle jurisdictioinal issues and contracts, etc. General Welfare just seemed out of character with the rest of the Constitution, it makes more sense that it was a limitation, not an authorization.

  13. Foreign Money? Really?
    Democrats peddle an unproven claim.

    October 11, 2010

    Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down, are trying to turn an evidence-free allegation into a major campaign theme, claiming that foreign corporations are “stealing our democracy” with secret, illegal contributions funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It’s a claim with little basis in fact.

    * The Democratic National Committee released a TV ad over the weekend claiming: “It appears they’ve even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections.”
    * President Obama said last week that “one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources.”
    * The liberal group MoveOn.org is claiming, without any qualification, that “[f]oreign corporations are funding some of the $75 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to defeat Democrats.”

    The chamber says it does receive money from foreign sources, but that it amounts to only a small fraction of the chamber’s $200 million budget. The chamber says none of the foreign money is used in its ads, and no evidence has been produced to show otherwise. Federal Election Commission opinions state that organizations taking in foreign money may make political donations legally, so long as they have “a reasonable accounting method” to keep foreign money separate and have enough money from U.S. sources to cover the donations.
    Analysis

    As we reported last week in an Ask FactCheck item on this subject, the claim that money from foreign corporations is funding Chamber of Commerce attack ads originated with a Democratic-leaning organization headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton. That report noted that the chamber took in foreign dues (without reporting the amount) and then said that the chamber is “likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law” against foreign spending in U.S. elections. The word “likely” made clear the author was engaging in speculation, which the chamber flatly denied. Tita Freeman, the chamber’s vice president of communications and strategy, told us that money the chamber takes in from foreign corporations “is not used for political ads.”

    Now others have challenged the claim. The New York Times reported:

    New York Times, Oct. 8: [T]here is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

    In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

    more at,
    http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

  14. Bottom Line says:

    Last Thursday in Concord,NH, a 16 hour old baby(Cheyenne) was kidnapped,at the hospital, by child protective services, from a man and his fiance. Apparently, the baby was locked in a room while the authorities served them an affidavit stating that the reason was because he(Mr.Irish) was a member of “Oathkeepers”. They stole the baby and will not allow the parents knowledge of her whereabouts.Also, the hospital had the parents served with a no trespassing order so that they are to stay off of hospital property.

    !?!?!?!? WTF !?!?!?!

    The story is going viral in a hurry. It’s all over youtube, and Alex Jones is having a shit-fit field day.

    Here is one of many articles…

    http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2010/10/right-wingers-newborn-taken-by-nh.html

%d bloggers like this: