You better side with Obama or else!

by Mr. H

I came across an article on the Right Kilk a few hours, and I am speechless.

It now seems; according to those aligned with “Organizing for America”; that if you are not in alignment with Mr. Obama or his National Health Care policies, then you are to be considered a Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists; all because you do not share the same views in which they do. So much for tolerance they seems so fond of claiming to live by whenever it suits their agenda.

No, these are not my words, but the words from those that penned the statements on Mr. Obamas Organizing for America website.

To quote them directly:

All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.

This is the exact type of tactics dictators use to make sure their agenda is met. They demonize anyone who disagrees with any of their views of ideologies.

DO YOU WANT to ensure passage of the Public Plan? Since 75% of Americans support it, I guess it’s time for us Seventy-Five Percenters to be heard. Why Public Plan? = Because It’s American To Take Care Of Our Own!

Then they further spew their rhetoric and lies without any facts to back up their claims. In the end all they resort to is name calling and opinions with nothing to back them up; nothing more, nothing less.

America I hope you are not buying into Obama or his carnage of change!

To read the story go to Right Kilk for the article titled:

• Team Obama vs. Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists

Make sure that we the people, who still believe in the Constitution of this nation, fight back in order to make sure that we will not let them get away with this any longer. So please I urge, I beg you to call your senators and congressmen and make sure you let them know that AMERICANS DO NOT WANT Obamacare, SOCIALIST do!

ThoughtRogue:  Uncle Teddy a “Statesman” – what the hell?  There’s an awful lot lyin’ goin’ on about the liberal lion.  Are we mourning the death of Aslan, or that of Simba?  It is especially disgraceful that Fox News has joined in the non-stop fictitious hagiography of one the most bloated, loathsome womanizing, murderous drunks of all time.  Oh yeah, and he never worked a real job in his life – his true legacy is one of separating you from as much of your wealth as possible, further enriching himself and his friends, while bribing his weak-minded Demoncat minions of their votes.

Not only has Chappaquiddick and the corpse of Mary Jo been scrubbed from the eulogies, remember the character assassination of Judge Robert Bork, the high-tech lynching of Justice Thomas, the Kennedy-McCain Shamnesty, and the Kennedy-Bush No-Dollar-Left-Behind travesty… (for starters)??  Lord, help this nation…

Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne

Only a Kennedy could get away with it.

By Mark Steyn, National Review Online

Murky Mystery?

We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation — or, at any rate, its “mainstream” media culture — declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s passing, America’s TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there’s a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.

In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 1940–1969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague. As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine: “Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life.”

That’s the way to do it! An “accident,” “ugly” in some unspecified way, just happened to happen — and only to him, nobody else. Ted’s the star, and there’s no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was . . . a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”

Actually, Peter denied Jesus, rather than “betrayed” him, but close enough for Catholic-lite Massachusetts. And if Moses having a temper never led him to leave some gal at the bottom of the Red Sea, well, let’s face it, he doesn’t have Ted’s tremendous legislative legacy, does he? Perhaps it’s kinder simply to airbrush out of the record the name of the unfortunate complicating factor on the receiving end of that moment of “tremendous moral collapse.” When Kennedy cheerleaders do get around to mentioning her, it’s usually to add insult to fatal injury. As Teddy’s biographer Adam Clymer wrote, Edward Kennedy’s “achievements as a senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne.”

Ten Hours to Find Help?

You can’t make an omelette without breaking chicks, right? I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo “would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it.” What true-believing liberal lass wouldn’t be honored to be dispatched by that death panel?

We are all flawed, and most of us are weak, and in hellish moments, at a split-second’s notice, confronting the choice that will define us ever after, many of us will fail the test. Perhaps Mary Jo could have been saved; perhaps she would have died anyway. What is true is that Edward Kennedy made her death a certainty. When a man (if you’ll forgive the expression) confronts the truth of what he has done, what does honor require? Six years before Chappaquiddick, in the wake of Britain’s comparatively very minor “Profumo scandal,” the eponymous John Profumo, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War, resigned from the House of Commons and the Queen’s Privy Council, and disappeared amid the tenements of the East End to do good works washing dishes and helping with children’s playgroups, in anonymity, for the last 40 years of his life. With the exception of one newspaper article to mark the centenary of his charitable mission, he never uttered another word in public again.

Ted Kennedy went a different route. He got kitted out with a neck brace and went on TV and announced the invention of the “Kennedy curse,” a concept that yoked him to his murdered brothers as a fellow victim — and not, as Mary Jo perhaps realized in those final hours, the perpetrator. He dared us to call his bluff, and, when we didn’t, he made all of us complicit in what he’d done. We are all prey to human frailty, but few of us get to inflict ours on an entire nation.

Read the rest of this entry »

TR:  A little ‘palate cleanser’ here to start your week off on the right note.  Puts you in the feel-good “Wayback Machine” doesn’t it?

by Paul Williams

Forget Mary Jo Kopechne

Senator Ted Kennedy was a wretched Roman Catholic who served to undermine the cardinal tenets of Christianity.

He earned a 100% NARAL Pro Choice rating for supporting every pro abortion issue that rose from the floor of the Senate, including the legalization of late-term abortions and the right of minors to cross state lines for abortions without parental permission.

He was a supporter of gay rights and same sex marriage.

He opposed public prayer, even silent prayer, and abstinence education.

And he strove to his dying day to sever the American people from their Judeo-Christian roots.

His funeral service should not have been held from a Roman Catholic Church but a Massachusetts mosque, since he is the true father of Islam in America.

In 1965, Kennedy served as the chief spokesman and advocate for changes in the immigration law that made it possible for millions of Muslims to make their way to the New World – - as the Christian Europeans had done in the early years of the 20^th Century.

The Cedar-Hart bill, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on October 3, 1965, abolished the national-origin quota system for America that had been in effect since 1924.

Prior to the passage of this legislation, American legislators attempted to control the racial balance of the country so that the country would be bonded by blood and heritage. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stipulated that “any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States” The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited Chinese families from immigrating to the United States. The Immigration Act of 1907 reorganized the states bordering Mexico (Arizona, New Mexico and a large part of Texas) into Mexican Border District to stem the flow of immigrants into the U.S.

The Immigration Act of 1924 further limited the number of new immigrants by the establishment of a stringent quota system. The number of newcomers was now limited to 2 percent of each nationality who lived in the country not in 1924 but in 1890. The reliance of this legislation on the ethnic composition of the country before the turn of the century guaranteed that the majority of new arrivals would be from Northern Europe. Since few Italians and Eastern Europeans lived in the U. S. in 1890, the quotas for these nationalities became fixed at marginal rates and the number of new immigrants from “undesirable” regions greatly reduced. The following chart shows the effects of this legislation:

It is hard to conceive of an act of Congress that could be more culturally biased than the Immigration Act of 1954 and yet it received nearly unchallenged bipartisan support. The New York Times editorialized: “The country has a right to say who shall and who shall not come in. . . . The basis of restriction must be chosen with a view not to the interest of any group or groups in this country . . . but rather with a view to the country’s best interests as a whole.”[1]

In 1952, The McCarran Walter Immigration Act affirmed the national-origins quota system of 1924 and limited total annual immigration to one-sixth of one percent of the population of the continental United States in 1920, or 175,455. The act exempted spouses and children of U.S. citizens and people born in the Western Hemisphere from the quota.

But, in 1965, Kennedy and company viewed such legislation as pig-headed and prejudicial. Few elected officials, Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina – - being one of the exceptions, dared to disagree with them. Championing the Celler-Hart bill, which called for the abolished all quotas, Kennedy, being far from prescient, said: “Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . The charges I have mentioned ae highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligation of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.”[2]

Forty years after Senator Kennedy made this pledge, Dean Steven Gillon of the Honors College at Oklahoma University assessed the results of the 1965 Immigration Act by noting: “The U. S. added at least 40 million immigrants after 1965. Before 1965, 95 percent of the new immigrants had come from Europe. After 1965, 95 percent came from the Third World. The 1965 act has transformed American society and had consequences exactly the opposite of what we were promised.”[3]

In his speech before Congress, Senator Kennedy had said; “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” The level of immigration, he swore, would remain substantially same as it was in 1965 – -156,700. This, too, proved to be woefully incorrect. The present immigrant rate exceeds 1.5 million annually. Noting this, Pat Buchanan writes:

The 1965 Cedar-Hart bill was the greatest bait-and-switch in history. Americans were promised one result, and got the opposite result that they had been promised would never happen. They were misled. They were deceived. They were swindled. They were told immigration levels would remain roughly the same and the ethnic composition of their country would not change. What they got was a Third World invasion that is converting America into another country.[4]

Prior to the passage of the Cedar-Hill bill, the presence of orthodox Islam in America was negligible – - a fact verified by the attempts to have Malcolm X buried from a Sunni place of worship. No such mosque could be located in New York City or its environs.

Malcolm’s family and friends were equally hard-pressed to find an orthodox imam who could prepare the black leader’s body for burial. This problem caused a delay in the internment that represented a violation of the Islamic law that the sun should not set twice on a believer’s body.

Ahmed Hassoun, a Sudanese sheikh, was flown to New York to wash the body with special holy oil and to wrap Malcolm’s remains in the seven white linen shrouds, known as the kafan.[5] Six days after his death, the funeral was held at the Faith Temple Church of God in Christ. The irony of the setting seemed lost on the hundreds of people in attendance.

Within thirty-five years of Malcolm’s death, hundreds of orthodox Sunni mosques were thriving within every borough of the city.

Thanks, Teddy.

[1] New York Times editorial cited in Otis J. Graham, Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis (Lanham, Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield, 2004), p. 50.

[2] Senator Edward Kennedy, quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan’s State of Emergency (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2006), pp. 238-239.

[3] Steven Gillon quoted in Georgie Anne Geyer’s “Immigration: The Elephant in America’s Room,” Universal Press Syndicate, October 2005, www:uexpress.com

[4] Patrick J. Buchanan, p. 239.

[5] Alex Haley, “Epilogue,” The Autobiography of Malcolm X, p. 459.

Since you wont agree, I will shut you up;  I Obama will have control!

by Mr. H

In our ever increasing time of governmental control from our current administration, it now seems that he wants to pass yet another bill that will keep the voice of the American people that speak out against his agendas silent by taking control of the internet when he deems necessary.

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared “cyber emergency.”

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what’s being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

… plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.”

Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act’s broadly drawn government powers.

…such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.

“The whole thing smells bad to me,” writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. “I don’t like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don’t like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president.” ^{[ 1 ]}

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

…Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat.
Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft…remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance…

…“It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.” ^{[ 2 ]}

This is yet another attempt, in which Obama and his administration, wishes to remove your freedoms as he continues to show no regard for any of our constitutional rights provided to us by our founding fathers.

“It’s an incredibly broad authority,” CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy laws “could fall to this authority.”

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.”

…granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the “critical” networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.

“What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are ‘banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.’ Let’s think about this,” writes Seltzer. “I’m especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash.”

S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security Advisor, and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of governmental cybersecurity specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate. ^{[ 1 ]}

An overview of what we can expect if these bills S.778 and S.773 ever become law.

Obama Wants Control over the Internet
http://www.obamabeenlying.com

• Permits the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a “cybersecurity” emergency
• President to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” in regards to “non-governmental” networks and do whatever they feel is necessary.
• Include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals”
• Requirement that some computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded a cybersecurity professional license
• Section 201: permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.”
• White House will engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government.
• “Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks
• If your company is considered “critical”, you get regulated. Who you can hire, what info you must disclose, and when the government can take control of your computers and network

Michael Savage on these Bills

source Michael Savage

Final Thoughts

This administration has already proven that they cannot be trusted, just look to the health care bill, cash for clunkers and every other agenda this man wishes to pass on the citizens of this nation. His goals, by the actions in which he takes, is to strip each and every one of us of the freedoms that have been afforded to us under the Constitution of the United States. The same Constitution they swore an oath to protect.

We must come together as one nation under God, and let our voices be heard.

We must make certain that every single congressmen and women who refuses to support our Constitution will be voted out of office come election time.

I say enough is enough, and I urge each and every one of you to call your congressmen and women today and let your voice – Your American Voice “be heard”.

Sources

1. Will bill give Obama control of Internet?
   Proposed new powers called ‘drastic federal intervention’
   By Drew Zahn
   http://www.wnd.com
2. Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
   by Declan McCullagh
   http://news.cnet.com

A Health Care Bill that I do not wish on my worse enemy

by Mr. H

The health care bill that our current president, Mr. Obama, wants passed regardless of the views of the citizens of this nation, is nothing short of euthanasia for the elderly and the unborn child. Yet, when an organization comes out with a commercial to refute this lunacy that could help stop Mr. Obama debauchery cold in his tracks, they refuse.

ABC, NBC Won’t Air Ad Critical of Obama’s Health Care Plan

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama’s health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot — particularly in light of ABC’s health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

source http://www.foxnews.com/

ABC / NBC Refusal to Air Ad

When you understand what the Obama health care package stands for, you soon realize that it is not for the good of the American people as this bill is extremely recklessly and carelessly written with all the atrocities it includes such as the tax funded murder of innocent unborn children (abortion):

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Wall St. Journal is the latest mainstream media outlet to confirm what pro-life advocates have been saying for months. It has acknowledged that the House version of the government-run health care plan allows for taxpayer financing of abortions.

“The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government’s role in the financing of abortions,” Time explained.

The main House bill, HR 3200, “does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program — the so-called public option.”

“President Obama isn’t being straight when he says current health care proposals don’t provide government funding for abortion. They do,” the Times newspaper said Monday. “If Democratic plans are passed, your taxes will pay for abortions.”^{[ 1 ]}

The murder of the elderly through a process called assisted suicide ( right to death ).

Part of the controversial health care reform proposal in Congress that discusses “end-of-life” counseling and medical procedures that could be rationed based on the age of the patient and other factors was written by suicide advocates who argue openly for the “right” to death, according to reports. ^{[ 2 ]}

Enter Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every 5 years – or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis…. ^{[ 3 ]}

…under Section 1308, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services, including the definitions of those treatments. Under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is “comparatively effective” for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.^{[ 2 ]}

Notice in the above quote that federal employees determine, not doctors.

Control of your childbirth rights and your children

…”how covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children.”

…the government would be allowed to ration health care procedures, prevent “judicial review” of its decision, tell doctors what income they can have, impose new taxes for anyone not having an “acceptable” coverage, regulate whether seniors can have wheelchairs, penalize hospitals or doctors whose patients require “readmission,” prevent the expansion of hospitals and set up procedures for home visits by health care analysts.

Under Section 440…the government “will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that expect children.”

…Section 194 provides for a program that has the government “coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent, “… ^{[ 2 ]}

And if all of this is immoral, anti-God legislation is not enough, when we start to dig a little deeper we can clearly see who Mr. Obama and his administration are aligned with in all their immoral and diabolical visions of change against the citizens of this nation.

The group Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society also says it had a hand in crafting Section 1233, writing July 27:

Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly with supportive members of congress to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice (section 1233 of House Bill 3200).

Compassion & Choices calls itself part of the “aid-in-dying movement. ” ^{[ 4 ]}

And just think, some of the authors involved in the penning of this horrific bill are the ones that believe in the killing of the elderly through a process called, “The Aid in Dying Movement”.

Final Thoughts

Is this the change that the American people really voted for?

Do the American people really believe that this administration has the citizens of this nation in their best interest when it comes to this so called ( universal ) health care ( murder ) bill?

From where I sit, I see a man who hates America, and most importantly hates God, the God of Israel, as he is doing everything in his power to destroy our country for generations to come with his immoral acts of legalized butchery.

I call it as I see it, and the way I see it, it does not look good.

Sources

1. Wall St. Journal Also Confirms House Health Care Bill Has Tax-Funded Abortions
   www.lifenews.com
2. Euthanasia advocates authored part of Obamacare
   www.wnd.com
3. Section 1233
   www.jillstanek.com
4. Section 1233 authors are major proponents of euthanasia, assisted suicide
   www.jillstanek.com

Dictatorship in the USA?

by Mr. H

First let’s listen to the concerns of Mr. Ron Paul

Things to think about

1. min 0:25 Martial law can be declared for as little as to restore public order.
2. min 0:47 New law allows president to circumvent the restrictions of both laws.
3. min 1:07 Martial law can be declared for:
   • Natural disaster
   • Public health reason
   • Terrorist Attacks
   • Or vague reason called other conditions
4. min 1:25 President can call national guard without congressional approval or the government’s approval and even send state guard troops to other states.

Now we will turn our ears to the concerns of Glenn Beck.

Aired today, August 27th 2009.

Glenn Beck asks, no one answers

Questions asked

1. Now let’s listen to what Obama has to say, min 1:00; Civilian National Security Force just as strong and well funded as the military.
2. min 2:05 Why is a force needed when you have internal threat?
3. min 2:35 Who are we fighting?
4. min 3:00 Not the border.
5. min 3:13 Not Islamic extremist as according to Obama we are not a war with Islamic extremist anymore.
6. min 3:54 Is it us, we the people; people that believe in the Constitution?
7. min 7:20 Who builds an army against an unknown threat? Who?

Well folks, these are the issues, now will someone from the White house please give us, the citizens of the United States of America, the answers.

Let us not forget that Ted Kennedy, man of privilege,  and power, and who never worked one day of his life in the private sector, took the life of Mary Jo Kopechne.

Mary Jo Kopechne, died at 28

“On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note [from author]: I drove across this bridge in a large 4×4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water — but then, I was not intoxicated.)

“Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water’s edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.

“Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne’s body had already been discovered.

“With the help of Father Joe’s connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, “I almost tossed and turned… I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car.” He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail — sentence suspended.”  ~ Mark Alexander, Patriot Post

This is what privilege buys those who believe they have more Rights than others!

Ted Kennedy doesn’t deserve to be honored. He needs to be recognized for his character, the fruit of his choices, and his continued work to destroy the careers of those whom he disagreed and his continued work to destroy this Republic!

I would no more honor this degenerate,  than I would honor Hilter, Mao, Che, Stalin or Ho Chi Min as these men were all murderers too.

Just because his Massachusetts’s constituents kept voting him back in office does not translate into him deserving any honor for his behavior.  All that was was a good media campaignn to dupe the voters.  As Alexander so bluntly stated, “a man who can’t govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.”

Ted Kennedy represented unfettered excess, arrogance, and out of touch with America which helped to create the mobocracy he supported. Kennedy had no problem being an imperialist when it came to taking over the sovereignty of an individual’s right to self-determination.  Kennedy had no problem passing volumes of laws that regulated and taxed those who were not from privilege.  Kennedy had no problem assassinating the character and careers of those he disagreed.

Frankly, there is very little about Ted Kennedy that is worth noting or honoring unless you are an Saul Alinsky Radical, Blame-America Firster, Marxist or Progressive!

Then, I guess, you have alot to admire!

JOIN US IN WASHINGTON DC SEPT. 12, 2009 FOR THE ULTIMATE TEA PARTY!

TR:  Never before has our White House been occupied by this level of radical Leftist revolutionaries.  Will we survive with the American Dream intact? – or should we be contemplating the formation of a new confederation, The Free Republics of America, neighboring but independent of this burgeoning Progressive hegemony (mostly, the East and Left coasts along with the NE and Great Lake states)?

Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’

Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

Vision becoming Krystal Clear.

The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamunist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP. Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession. In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care. Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

Read the rest of this entry »