No Climate Change? Rename the Climate Bill - The American Power Act

I have often said that the environmental movement is the new home for socialists and radicals that seek to bring us to a one world, socialist government. It used to be that the environmentalists were concerned with preserving the environment and protecting wildlife. Now radical social engineers have seized the movement and have laced these efforts with programs designed to hack away at the structure of capitalism while funneling money and industry out of the US and into the third world. To make the case, I will begin with the familiar faces in all of this; the Obama administration Czars and Al Gore and eventually move on to the organizations that are being used to promote this on a grand scale. Yes, they are being used. Even Lenin called leftist journalists and Marxists in the Western nations “Useful Idiots” because they were so willing and yet, had no idea of what they would eventually be doing to themselves.

The argument for global warming has a number of critics that have apparently been shut out of the debates. No less than 30,000 scientists have claimed that their work has been summarily dismissed and their data and findings have been refused entry into discussions and debates on the subject. It seems that anything or anyone that does not support the race to enact sweeping climate legislation is being swept aside. This is not isolated to the work of independent researchers. Several scientists working directly for the EPA were driven out of the agency for insisting that this data be seriously reviewed.

The Data suggesting that global warming is not a man-made effect, but rather, a natural phenomenon is starting gain traction and in fact, the real data suggests that the trend in rising global temperatures already peaked in 1989 and is subsiding, lending even more credence to the natural phenomenon theories. But the race goes on. After the news broke about manipulated data and damaging e-mails surrounding the so-called “climate researchers”, the sinister powers behind this scam have simply renamed the Climate Bill “The American Power Act” to hide the connection between the people that will gain from this and the crippled global warming argument. The name change is being attempted to try and fool people into believing that this is about revitalizing our power systems instead of admitting it is about the power that will be stolen from the American people. This legislation will damage industry in the U.S., strain our already challenged economy and remove your basic freedom to decide how much power you will personally use by making it too expensive to purchase. It isn’t all bad though…some people are positioned to make enormous amounts of money because they are strategically invested to gain from the Climate Bill or the America Power Act, as it is now being called.

Al Gore received much notoriety over his film “An Inconvenient Truth” but the real inconvenience is that a number of his facts were improperly arrived at and there are some serious flaws with the claims this film has made and in the data used to formulate those claims. Even though the UK Supreme court decided that the flaws in the film are significant enough to require schools in Great Britain that wish to show the film pass out an accompanying list of corrections, Mr. Gore feels no compelling reason to answer questions about those inconsistencies. The sad fact is that Mr. Gore has already made millions from that film and has made technology investments that will net him billions if the U.S. Climate Bill passes into law. He is now making sizable investments with the money he earned through his film to fund activist groups that favor the American Power Act. Now isn’t that curious?

Then there is Carol Browner, the White House "Climate Czar". She headed the EPA during both terms of the Clinton presidency, making her the longest-serving Administrator in the agency's history. Carol Browner received her education in the University of Florida. Coincidentally, that is the same school that N. David Cook attended. You remember Dr. Cook. He is the man that started the hate rhetoric about Christopher Columbus and the evil European explorers the infected the new world.

On Browner’s final day as Clinton EPA chief in 2001, she ordered a computer technician to delete all her computer files, in direct violation of a federal judge's order requiring the agency to preserve those files. When questioned about her actions, Browner claimed that her computer had contained no work-related material, and that she had merely purged the hard drive of such innocuous items as computer games as a courtesy to incoming staffers of the Bush administration. It was later learned that three additional high-ranking EPA officials had also violated the court order and erased their hard drives as well. Because of this, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held the EPA in contempt of court. Were all the high ranking officials of the Clinton era EPA playing games on their office computers or was there something that had to be deleted? Remember the Coward-Piven Strategy can only be successful if its use remains secret.

Of course an almost manic desire for secrecy is nothing new for Carol Browner or for that matter, the Obama administration. In recent meetings Browner had with U.S. Auto manufacturers regarding the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, it was disclosed by a participant in those meetings that Ms. Browner ordered that no notes were to be taken and none of the meeting issues were to be discussed outside of the meeting. This is a very troubling revelation when we are discussion an appointee that promised his administration would finally offer the American people transparency in their government. We thought he meant openness but apparently his interpretation of transparency has more to do with invisibility.

Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of Socialist International. Oddly enough, the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission. Socialist International (SI), the umbrella group for 170 "social democratic, socialist and labor parties" in 55 countries. SI's "organizing document" cites capitalism as the cause of "devastating crises," "mass unemployment," "imperialist expansion," and "colonial exploitation" worldwide. The Commission for a Sustainable World Society, with which Browner worked, contends that "the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.”

There’s another one of those curious little points. Only the “developed world” would be required by the U.N.’s climate initiatives to “reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions." Even though developing nation’s manufacturing and industrial centers use fuels and manufacturing processes that are far more damaging to the ecology than developed nations, they would be exempt. Instead of a comprehensive climate program to reduce harmful emissions, that sounds more like a social program designed to shift industrial growth from Western Democracies to the third world. It also sounds incredibly similar to the mission statement from Carol Browner’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

Well what do you know? Just when we needed proof that Ms. Browner’s agenda has more to do with changing the United States economic system than it does with changing the climate, along comes Cass Sunstein the White House “Regulatory Czar”. Mr. Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner, in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.

Throughout Sunstein's paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice", he maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. The paper makes references to terms such as "distributive justice" several times throughout the 39 page document. In the paper Sunstein says: "It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," He adds: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”

Sunstein also suggests "If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives". He also maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

Of course, if I am going to post quotes from the Obama administration how could I possibly forget Obama’s former green jobs Czar, Van Jones. He may be gone, but he is definitely not forgotten. Mr. Jones is an invaluable addition to this collection because he cared so little about what he said out loud. His quotes and video statements can still be easily found on the internet, mostly because there is no longer a need to hide them. In the end, it was not his racist statements that white businesses were steering pollution into minority neighborhoods, nor his open admission that he was a communist that forced his resignation from the White House. It wasn’t even unceasing rhetoric about how they would use the farce of “green jobs” to steer billions of dollars to ease, what he considered, racial injustices. He was forced to resign because he was one of the radical fools that signed a petition demanding the Bush administration admit their guilt in concocting the 9/11 attacks so they could launch a war on Islam.

The only reason I feel compelled to mention his quotes now, is because after researching Carol Browner and Cass Sunstein, it is clear that he was not bubbling over with his own idea of what should be. His statements are directly in line with too many of Obama’s other special advisors not to be bullet points in their plan to reshape global politics. For instance, Van Jones said: “The green economy should not just be about reclaiming throw-away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities. It should not just be about recycling things to give them a second life. We should also be gathering up people and giving them a second chance.”

He also said: “All the big ideas for getting us onto a lower carbon trajectory involve a lot of people doing a lot of work, and that's been missing from the conversation. This is a great time to go to the next step and ask, well, who's going to do the work? Who's going to invest in the new technologies? What are ways to get communities wealth, improved health, and expanded job opportunities out of this improved transition?” Both of those quotes sound a lot like Sunstein’s proposals on redistribution and a plan to correct some of the ills that Browner blames on capitalism.

Some may say that wanting to put people to work and provide healthcare might be social programs, but is Mr. Jones really suggesting socialism? Well, read on because he also said "…But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

So there it is in his own words. A green movement should pursue the same steps and stages as the radical movement that nearly brought us to revolution in the mid ‘60s? A green movement that they will push and push, not to transform the energy economy as we were told, but to transform the “whole society”? The idea that this is all being brought about by a multitude of converging crisis’s to force us into drastic action also sounds way too much like Cloward and Piven to be a coincidence.

Neither the Climate Bill, Cap and Trade, the UN accords on Climate Change nor the “green movement” has anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. They have everything to do with seeing America surrender its wealth and production capabilities to give some of those poor, struggling third world nations a chance to grow. This is simply a tool for the transfer of American power, money and industries abroad; to strengthen the UN and other “world governance organizations and prepare the US citizenry for a life securely bound in the Marxist yoke.

Paul

Target 2010 - Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Henry Waxman is one of the more nefarious members of Congress and poses a greater threat than most because of his seniority as a thirty-five year veteran of Congress. His political ideology and voting record are currently rated between 85 and 100% by a whole host of Progressive and Leftist political organizations but of course, that should come as no surprise. Anyone that has followed Waxman’s career has seen that time and time again, Waxman has openly displayed a real love for political activism and Socialist principals. He champions many of his causes with a hard core belief that government must act for the good of the people, even if those actions are unpopular and stretch the very fabric of the Constitution. Curiously, as he claims to speak for the public, much of the legislative action that Waxman is famous (or infamous) for, necessarily requires a degree of government control over the people that is clearly beyond the lawful limits decreed by the enumerated powers of the United States Constitution.

Many Progressives are drawn to the study of Political Science and Law to facilitate their ideology and Waxman was no different. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a Degree in Law from UCLA Law School. Anyone that has been alive for the past forty years knows who UCLA is and what they represent. They have been one of the centers of Progressive ideology for decades and their halls and buildings are clogged with openly Socialist professors and educational programs. Many of those professors actively pursue the indoctrination of their students until they are drawn into a zombie-like belief of what is now called, social and economic “justice”. The curious thing about this brand of justice is that it unapologetically advocates stomping on the rights, freedoms and possessions of some, to provide a subsistence level, government funded existence for others. I was raised to believe that the redistribution of wealth is not justice; it is Socialism but then again, I didn’t go to UCLA. In the end, I think the only thing UCLA excels in is providing future Progressives with a lexicon of new and less threatening words they can use to sell Marxist principals to an unsuspecting nation.

It is clear that Waxman drank the “Kool-Aid” while he was in UCLA because he is one of the most far left leaning Progressives in Congress and second only to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that is an admitted Socialist. Waxman pushed for crushing legislation against the tobacco industry and was instrumental in the House passage of many anti-smoking legislative packages that included the imposition of heavier “sin” taxes for tobacco products. I know there aren’t many people that think that smoking is a good thing, including me. It is a nasty, filthy habit but in reading the Constitution, it should remain a nasty, filthy personal choice because there is no way to tax smokers into submission without inflicting grave damage on the Constitution.

Taxation was never meant to regulate behavior and the imposition of those specific taxes is a direct assault on the Ninth Amendment affirmation that the general public has more rights than those that are specifically stated in the Constitution. It also flies in the face of Article One, Section Eight (The Powers of Congress) which states clearly that taxes are to be collected only to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States and that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. There is nothing uniform about a tax on one consumable item that is not levied on all of them and there is no compelling argument that the Congress has the right to impose a tax that exceeds the criteria of Article One, Section Eight to encourage or dissuade behavior. The Constitutional issues with Waxman’s urge to ignore personal freedoms for our own good have been argued six ways from Sunday and I doubt little progress will be made on that unless we can establish a list of definitions that clearly state the intentions of the law as it was written by the founding fathers.

Laying taxes aside for the moment, Waxman is quoted as saying something far more dangerous to a nation of free people. Henry Waxman said "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” One must first recognize that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because it was the only way to guarantee that the rest of our rights would remain inviolate at the hands of the Federal government. The founders did not trust a strong central government and recognized that a limited government would only remain limited for as long as the people maintained the ability to “keep them honest”; by force if needed.

I submit to you that the only people that would be nervous about American citizens that would use weapons in the defense of their rights are the people that intend to deny those rights in the first place. The Progressive movement seeks to replace the Free Market with a government based on Socialist principals and it is well known that the first impediment to this “Progressive Transformation” is the uninhibited private ownership of weapons. As such, the first assault on our rights must have the affect of nullifying the Second Amendment before they can move with impunity to tamper with any of the rest. I don’t think it’s any great mystery that Henry Waxman is a devoted advocate of strict gun regulation. For those that think gun registration and licensing is a benign action that promotes safety; don’t forget that every government that made radical changes towards Socialism used those very registration and licensing records to zero in on gun owners when the confiscation of weapons finally began.

Henry Waxman is currently Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which is an extremely powerful position and Waxman has used that position to nudge the country closer to the hidden goals of the Progressive movement than at any time in our history. In many ways, Henry Waxman was the muscle behind Nancy Pelosi when it came to extorting the votes they needed for the Healthcare Bill from reluctant Democrats. As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, there are matters taken up before his Committee that can direct billions in funding to the States of Congressmen willing to cast the “right” vote and those same Congressmen could see projects and special funding dry up and blow away if their votes weren’t in line with the demands of the House leadership.

Of course, those deals are never discussed openly on the floor of Congress but you can bet that language favoring Congressmen that sold their votes behind closed doors has already been slipped into Bills totally unrelated to Healthcare so the trail to connect the bribes to the votes would be difficult, at best, to follow. The justification for this can be found in the open admission by the Democratic leadership is that this is the way business in Washington is done. It doesn’t really matter if Candidate Obama campaigned on a new era of transparency and honesty in government, Obama is President now and he made it very clear during the healthcare summit that the campaign is over.

Henry Waxman used every power at his disposal to move the healthcare bill forward and now he is already positioning himself to do the same for the comprehensive Energy Bill otherwise known as Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is his bill and is even more intrusive and fiscally irresponsible than the Healthcare Bill. Through the smart grid, smart meters and compliant appliances, the government will have the ability to reach into your home and regulate how long your appliances run and how much you will pay to run them. The regulation of CO2 is not actually meant to curb climate change. It is meant to provide a vast new source of revenue for redistribution, bringing us even closer to a Socialist State. Just as in smoking, if the government were serious about reducing CO2, they wouldn’t simply charge you a fee to produce it or to use it; they would actually regulate it with goals for reduction.

Waxman is a vicious little troll that has been in Congress long enough to believe that he is a member of the ruling class instead of just another United States citizen elected to represent his constituents. As with most Progressives, Waxman has forgotten his responsibility to his district and to the Constitution. You can always spot the Congressmen that have been there way too long. They are the ones that think the Constitution is a hurdle to be jumped or a challenge to be overcome. Unfortunately, Henry represents an area that doesn’t pose much difficulty for his reelection but I still have faith. I think this year exposed career politicians for what they really are and that is the polar opposite of the founder’s intention of having a citizen legislature. You can’t stay in Washington for thirty-five years and pretend you have the first idea about what your constituents expect from their government. The biggest favor anyone can do for Henry Waxman is to send him home so he can get reacquainted with the human race.

Paul

Back to School: Obama and Alinsky

Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. There are some exceptions to that rule. The lonely romantic searching internet dating sites and community socials for that one special match; the casual gambler that plays his ten dollars worth of lottery tickets every week for that remote possibility that this week he will hold the winning ticket and of course, the devoted fans of the Boston Red Sox that shed both the “Curse of the Bambino” and the suspicions of insanity when Boston swept the Cardinals in the 2004 World Series.

Of course there is a darker side to the list of exceptions to Einstein’s rule. The shady criminal that checks random homes for an unlocked door or open window; the con artist that makes a thousand pitches before bilking some unsuspecting dupe for their bank information and passwords and the radical ideologues looking for that crack in America’s armor so they can bring us one step closer to their vision of a utopian socialist society.

One would think that Obama would have gotten the message last year when he tried to infuse his address to America’s students with those curious accompanying materials asking students what they can do to help the President achieve his goals. Of course he had Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, to blame that on and managed to effectively distance himself from the criticism even though the nation was in an uproar with many parents keeping their children home from school that day, even in districts where the school boards had announced an “opt-out” alternative for the President’s speech.

As reported in the Conservative Blog, “Atlas Shrugs”, an Atlas reader, Chuck, has a student in the eleventh grade in an Ohio High School. Her government class passed out what can only be described as a propaganda recruiting paper so students could sign up as interns for Obama's Organizing for America. OFA is the post-election manifestation of the former campaign site of Barack Obama, Obama for America. Their report on the latest school story can be found at:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/atlas-exclusive-obama-organizing-for-communism-and-youth-corps-in-the-public-school-1.html

Obama is now being accused using our public school system to recruit for an Alinsky-inspired private army. Organizing for America is clearly recruiting in our schools to, as they say, "build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda" and has created an intern program centered on the President’s experience with community organizing.

The Ohio High School in question is Perry Local in Massillon, Ohio. In all fairness to the Perry Local High School and to the Massillon school board, this was not a concerted effort by the School Board or even Perry Local High School to carry out the agenda distributed by the Obama Administration. This was the action of a single teacher that violated a school mandate prohibiting the distribution of political materials to the students. The local Fox affiliate in Ohio correctly reported on the incident in their usual fair and balanced style, allowing the School Board to answer the charges directly. That report can be seen here:

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-perry-township-high-school-controversy,0,1279152.story

Unfortunately that does not mean that Organizing for America is not guilty of trying to indoctrinate the young vulnerable minds of America’s youth into the radical movement currently being used to assault our nation. It is clear what the intent is by reading the application itself and OFA’s website itself, says they are targeting key States, listing Ohio as one of them.

For those that think the words “indoctrination” and “radicalization” are too strong, one need only review the recommended reading list on page four of the application to gain a glimpse into the goals of the intern program.

Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky
The New Organizers, Zack Exley
Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy, Rinku Sen
Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle, Zack Exley, Huffington Post
Dreams of My Father Chicago Chapters, Barack Hussein Obama

At a time when Poland’s former President, Lech Walesa, claims that the United States has lost its position as the moral leaders of the world, the President’s own website is suggesting that our students read Alinsky? Alinsky was a firm believer in the Marxist philosophy that the ends justify the means and it was perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat and steal so long as one’s political goals were victorious. I would think that the President of the United States would want to bring out the best in America’s youth and would be, as past President’s were, an advocate of honor, truth and virtue. No, Obama taught Alinsky as a professor and used Alinsky theory while “organizing” communities prior to his political career. This latest effort to indoctrinate our youth in opposition to the parent’s wishes is just another manifestation of “the ends justify the means”.

I know the left goes crazy when the right links Obama to other fascist leaders but what do they expect when we see the same tactics reemerging on school property? Is there no parallel between OFA’s internship for high school students and the efforts of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin to make sure that the youth of their nations were “properly educated” in politics? The fact remains that each of those leaders targeted youth because it was much easier to bring about a “fundamental transformation” of their societies when you start with children that have not formed an opinion yet. The only thing that can stop an agenda like that is to boldly point it out wherever it is found. Radicals, like vampires, cannot live in the light of day.

Part of the left’s strategy is to misrepresent the resistance to Obama’s radical agenda, including these attempts to infect our children with worthless Marxist drivel; after all, the ends justify the means. Air America’s Janeane Garofalo and former President Jimmy Carter along with MSNBC’s Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann would have you believe that the fight against the “Obamanista’s” are all about race. They constantly accuse that a broad spectrum of the American people are only displaying their bigotry when they are angered by Obama’s tax and spend initiatives or when they bring these school-aged indoctrination efforts under fire. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The resistance to Obama is not based in black versus white bigotry but is rather, a Marxist versus the Constitution patriotism.

You must admit it is a brilliant scheme though. The President did learn to stay away from the fray. After all, even the Secretary of Education was still too close to him the last time. Now they are sneaking these things into the schools through their army of Kool-Aid drinking, want-to be organizers devoted to Obama’s agenda through the poisonous tendrils emanating from Obama’s own Organizing for America. So a teacher violates a rule here or there. The message is still out there and both the school board and the President can claim no responsibility for the infraction if they are caught. As far as the President has tried to remain from the center of this latest drive to radicalize our children there are still nagging little reminders everywhere; such as the National Education Association’s suggested reading list. They are ardent supporters of Obama so it is really no surprise that they also suggest the reading of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm

Instead of healthcare reform maybe we need education reform? If we had only taught the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and an accurate history of America over the past one hundred years, we probably wouldn’t need healthcare reform, welfare, Medicaid or a flood of stimulus bills…now would we.

Paul

What is Obama's Top Priority?

The President mentioned a whole host of non-descript people that keep saying “slow down” to which Obama commented…”How long must we wait?” So who are these mysterious voices? Republicans have been effectively locked out of the negotiations so it can’t be them. The Tea Party people have been dismissed by this administration as crazy and the polls show that Americans are already angry for being ignored so it can’t be them either. Progressive Democrats are all behind the Obama agenda and are urging immediate action so nope, not them. The moderate Democrats might feign resistance but we now know they are just looking for their buy-out so that roadblock evaporates as soon as the cash is on the table. The secret service keeps the President a comfortable distance from nearly everyone else so I thought perhaps it was the Salahi’s; but they are little more than media hounds and wouldn’t dare risk exposure by taking any side in the discussion.

If Obama weren’t a Progressive radical with a heavy Chicago political background, I might think it were his conscience speaking to him but we all know that Chicago politicians and Progressive radicals have no conscience. With all other possibilities scientifically excluded, that leaves only one voice as the possible suspect; the voice no one in Washington ever mentions….the voice of reason.

I did not find it surprising that Obama didn’t mention the multitude of voices chiding him to accelerate the process; to force legislation before the mid-term elections eliminate the dominance of Congressional Progressives. These voices want healthcare reform with a strong public option because that is the one thing that will bring about their real goal of Socialized medicine within ten years. These voices want Cap and Trade because they know what most Americans don’t. That Cap and Trade is not about saving the planet from global warming but saving the planet from Capitalism. It is a mechanism that will bridle this nation’s ability to further develop domestic energy resources and will complete the migration of manufacturing industries to countries that do not possess the same penchant for self destruction.

We have been discussing those voices for quite some time on the Vigilance Project. The United Nations; George Soros and the multitude of Marxist organizations that he funds through the Tides Foundation; ACORN; The Apollo Alliance; SEIU; G.E. and even though there are many more, let us not forget the Progressives firmly lodged in Congress. Considering the initiatives the President still claims are a priority for the nation, each and every one of these factions are more than adequately represented by this administration.

So why didn’t Obama mention these voices in the State of the Union Address? Because they mirror his own ideas of what this nation should look like before he’s through with it. It’s kind of like Karaoke….It might sound like you’re singing but if you are really quiet, you can hear the original song and artist clearly in the background. When Obama is quiet (he has to sleep sometimes) you can clearly hear the background music in the speeches and interviews of Progressive Democrats, Andy Stern, Jeff Immelt and whispered by all of those radical supporters of the Socialization of America. They are no more dragging Obama to the left than an alcoholic must be dragged to a bar.

The State of the Union Address contained as many contradictions as it did lies. Jobs creation is the administration’s number one priority but we must complete healthcare and pass a comprehensive climate bill; both of which are sited by the business community as creating a climate of uncertainly that has prevented business owners from risking any expansion. The President announced support for developing domestic energy resources in America including nuclear, coal and oil but he has already placed the right people within the EPA that will make sure that can never happen.

Every possible avenue available to the radical environmental movement has been used to indefinitely stall projects that would have developed domestic energy resources in this country. They don’t do this in other countries because we are the only idiots that give them unlimited access to our courts even when the figurehead filing the suit does not reside in the community where the project has been proposed. If the President weren’t merely playing lip service to the development of domestic energy he would be asking Congress to declare the development of these resources vital to the strategic interests on the United States and block interference from both the environmental left and the EPA.

The President announced that the Federal government will fund a high speed rail project because Europe and Japan have taken the lead in high speed rail and we cannot accept second place. Well, high speed rail makes perfect sense in Europe and Japan because they do not have vast tracts of undeveloped land not to mention that many of those nations are barely larger than the state of Texas. We also have the burden of a twelve trillion dollar national debt that White House projections claim will double by the end of his second term and those projections do no include healthcare reform or the passage of a climate bill. To be able to call high speed rail an investment you must first be able to expect a return on that investment. Short of providing a bone for his union friends and of course, GE; there is no return for this so-called investment.

Yesterday the White House announced a plan to provide small business with a five-thousand dollar tax incentive for each new job they create in 2010. In addition, they will forego any increase in the company’s payroll taxes for those new employees. Sounds good right? Not really. The minimum wage established by the Federal government is currently $7.35 per hour. Add payroll taxes and benefits, because we are going to have to provide healthcare and each new employee will cost that company a minimum of $20,000 per year and the tax incentives and relief are a one time shot. That is like saying don’t worry about whether or not you can afford the payments…go ahead and buy that new car and I’ll throw in a tank of gas. Just think how far that will get you!

President Obama has stacked the deck against the American business community and they are not responding to his jobs initiatives or to the dangling carrots of tax breaks because until they can accurately forecast their future tax liabilities, they will not expand their markets and product lines nor add new employees. Unlike the Federal government, business must first ask the question of how they will be able to pay for additional labor or new programs or they will shortly cease to exist as a business.

Curiously, the President has once again proved his arrogance while speaking at a House Republican retreat today in Baltimore. He stood before the crowd and accused Republicans of portraying health care reform as a "Bolshevik plot" and telling their constituents that he is "doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

Er, sorry Mr. President…..that would be me, not the House Republicans. I wouldn’t be saying half of what I have been saying if your administration isn’t pocked with people with socialist and communist backgrounds and if your friends and advisors weren’t recycled 1960’s radicals.

Can you deny that you taught Alinsky in college and then applied those lessons to your community “organizing” techniques in the street of Chicago? Can you deny that your climate Czar, Carol Browner, belonged to an organization (Socialist International) that sought to unify the world under a single Socialist government or that your science Czar, John Holdren, proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization in his writings? Can you deny that your former green jobs Czar, Van Jones openly admitted to being a communist or that your own chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel thinks the First Amendment is overrated? I could go on and on but this is getting repetitious.

About the only thing we haven’t discussed on this subject is the purging of your administration of these pariahs only because you have thus far refused to do that. Without the dismissal of the radicals within your administration and circle of advisors, I can only conclude that your aim is to continue to foment support for a Bolshevik plot to take over the healthcare system and are indeed actively pursuing a path that will lead to the destruction of the Constitution of the United States and our Capitalist financial system.

Paul

They Finally Did It...

Well they finally did it. Nearly 100 years after the Godfather of Progressive Socialism, Theodore Roosevelt, made socialized medicine part of his Progressive Party campaign, the Democrats achieved another milestone in their relentless march towards Marxist medicine. The Senate voted for cloture in the early hours of Christmas Eve along strictly Party lines, sending the measure to the house by a vote of 60 to 39. Not one Republican voted for the bill which is not a surprise since the bill is the antithesis of Republican and Conservative ideology.

In fact, the bill as written violates the sensibilities of even moderate Democrats who certainly would have voted against it if it weren’t for the threats issued behind closed doors by the reigning Chicago “Thugocracy” in the White House. When the votes of moderates could not be bought through the usual corrupt process of sweetening the pot with pork, the goons came out of the shadows and threatened everything from military base closures to personal attacks on the spouses of the offending Congressmen.

Americans are angry, not only because we oppose this bill by a ratio of nearly two to one and the majority party of Congress doesn’t seem to care, but since Liberal Democrats have seized control of their Party, both houses of Congress and the White House, the legislative process has become a dishonest, corrupt and dangerous game of political dominance as well. The only winners in that game are the special interests that are advancing their agenda; the special interests that have paid enormous sums of money to the political campaigns of the people that are now making their dreams come true.

SEIU for example, directed tens of millions of dollars from their membership to the Obama campaign and God only knows what their contributions have been to other Progressive Democrats. Recently released records show that Andy Stern, President of the SEIU has been the most frequent visitor to the White House, having been there nearly two dozen times since Obama’s inauguration. Of course if the White House had its way, we’d have never known about those visits; it was only after a public outcry for transparency and threats of Freedom of Information law suits that the White House capitulated and released the visitors list.

Andy Stern huh? Considering Andy recently revived the rally cry “Workers of the world, unite!” I doubt he’s been visiting Obama for a series of “beer summits” or to help the President with his bowling score. “Workers of the world unite” is taken directly from the pages of the Communist Manifesto and Andy boy says it is no longer a slogan, but the way that the SEIU and other labor unions must do their work. They are seeking to internationalize the labor movement and complete the dream of a global network of socialist nations under a central controlling body. Historically, the one roadblock to communist expansion had been the United States and what better way to eliminate that roadblock than to convince them to consume themselves.

Since the days of FDR, the United States has been creeping towards the goal of a Socialist United States through the efforts of what Lenin called “useful idiots”. Useful idiots are those that have not become out and out socialists but instead, have been nudged into accepting little doses of Socialist policies with the intention of doing good. Of course the recipients of these new policies become mesmerized by the prospect of getting something for nothing which serves to accelerate the process. What the “idiots” did not realize is that their introduction into that very thought process was part of a carefully orchestrated indoctrination policy founded and funded by the Communist brain trust.

Why fight when you can fudge? Why shoot when you can sway? Why bleed when you can bully? In the end, the United States would keep sliding further and further into the Socialist abyss until one day she would wake to find that the Constitution had become so diluted with legislative exclusions to the constraints the founding fathers had placed on the Federal government, that the government was no longer the servant, but the master. The current healthcare plan is a “starter set”. It is a Trojan horse that requires only a few more strokes of the legislative pen to transform it into a universal socialized medical system very much like the disasters that have been bankrupting Europe for decades.

Not many people believe that the government would enact legislation intentionally designed to destroy the national economy and I agree, but let’s not forget that these are “useful idiots” and while they are under the ether of playing “Robin Hood”, most cannot see where this will eventually lead. Oh the old hardliners of the former Soviet Union know where it is going, mostly because they drafted the plan to corrupt and demoralize the United States. I’m sure Vladimir Putin is rubbing his sweaty little hands together in anticipation. If you remember, Vlad was once the head of the KGB before Russia dissolved Communism and attempted to democratize. He would love nothing more than to return Russia to her former glory without the costly impediment of a strong and prosperous America to contend with.

Other “useful idiots” like Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Pivens had succumbed to the illusion of the utopian society sought after by American communists. They had constructed their strategy for social justice around the need to collapse the financial strength of America so that a new and just socialist government could be put in place. In fact, their strategy had been tested and proved incredibly successful by George Wiley and eventually, Wade Rathke. Their concerted effort to overwhelm the entitlement structure in New York City thrust the city, and nearly the entire State, into bankruptcy.

This healthcare plan is nothing more than a small part of a much larger, revised version of Cloward and Pivens strategy. It does none of what it is advertised to do and if the Federal government were actually bound to obey the same advertising laws that American businesses are bound by, the President and most of the Democratic Party would already have been prosecuted for their misrepresentation of the product they are trying to sell us.

The comical part of this is that Democrats have called this a Christmas present for America. Uh, sure. A present just like when Uncle Bill give’s your kids a puppy for Christmas; except instead of a puppy, this is a cute little baby gorilla. Uncle Bill won’t be around to clean up the mess it makes and he’s certainly not worried about what it will cost you to feed it. Uncle Bill won’t be there when it grows up and takes over your life either because everyone knows a 600 lb gorilla get’s pretty much what ever it wants. No, Christmas gifts are thoughtful and benign. The perfect gifts make no demands on you and they fit your lifestyle instead of demanding change from you to accommodate them. The most important difference is that a gift really isn’t a gift when it’s purchased with money that has been stolen from your wallet.

I know this blog has been mentioned in several places where members of Congress have been but I don’t know if they actually read it and considering the content, I honestly wouldn’t blame them if they didn’t. But just on the outside chance that some of them may see this…..Guys….skip the gorilla and stick with the tie or the slippers….really.

Paul

The Real Conference in Copenhagen

Copenhagen looks like it may end up being “Nopenhagen” by the time the negotiations are concluded. China has been targeted as the nation that has brought the process to a halt; that is unless you speak to representatives of Socialist nations in which case it is the fault of America and her Capitalist stooges. Oh if that were only true!

In the latest round of negotiations, China said they would enter a non-binding agreement to reduce their CO2 emissions but has abjectly refused to allow access for international verification of that reduction. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said the United States would enter into a climate treaty and would contribute to a $100 billion dollar per year fund to assist developing nations in creating environmentally sound industry and infrastructure provided that the agreement among developed nations was binding and the emission reductions were verifiable.

While some called Hillary’s comments about the prerequisite of a binding and verifiable treaty before the U.S. would participate, an overt jab at China, I have a different take on that. I believe that was the first indication that the administration is beginning to realize that there is no public support for a climate treaty and that the legislation required to meet the President’s optimistic goals of greenhouse gas reduction would be impossible to pass with our current economic challenges.

The world held it’s breath as our fearless leader arrived in Copenhagen last night. No, they really didn’t but since Obama loves to hear stuff like that I figured I would throw it in anyway. Intent on achieving something after spending so much taxpayer money to get there, the big “O” changed his schedule to attend an emergency meeting to try to broker a last minute deal. This time it was China’s turn to take a jab at us by sending the Vice Foreign Minister to the meeting instead of a senior official. Vice Foreign Minister Yafei’s power within the Chinese government is equivalent to that of a Lieutenant Colonel in the Salvation Army. While Yafie can speak about his government’s position in matters of State, he cannot negotiate nor agree to treaties on China’s behalf. Clearly, China does not have the same awe for Obama that SEIU, ACORN or dozens of other American parasites do, and they have no problem showing it.

The so-called, developing nations really don’t give a damn about the harsh criticism that global warming is now under and could care less about the trickery and slight of hand used to create the science behind it; they want our money. In fact, the principal spokesmen for the developing nations stated quite firmly that $100 billion a year isn’t enough and they want $200 billion; which is the U.N. equivalent of “That’s a nice planet you got there pal…It would be a shame if something was to happen to it.” I haven’t seen this kind of outright criminal extortion since they read the transcripts of John Gotti’s conversations during his racketeering trial.

These “developing” nations, for the most part, have no industry but war with each other. Many are dictatorships that already use charitable food programs to cultivate their own power so why would anyone believe a windfall from climate agreements would go to anything besides the numbered bank accounts of the potentates that have already emptied their own treasuries? It seems to me that denying them this slush fund would go a lot further at keeping those nations green than giving them the funds to buy more military equipment and golden toilets.

On a far more serious note, the true nature and depth of the climate debate is slowly being uncovered in Copenhagen for all to see. Let’s start with the obvious hypocrisy of the leaders of the member nations. The coverage of the arriving delegates included some details that would not be unusual if this were not a conference on reducing the global emission of greenhouse gas; but it is. There were hundreds of private jets and thousands of limousines just to bring the delegates to the conference; culminating with Obama arriving at the last minute on his Boeing 747.

In fact, Copenhagen did not have enough limousines to transport the delegates so they had to bring in hundreds more from bordering countries. If they absolutely had to attend, why couldn’t they “green” the conference and share a bus from the airport to the conference center? Could it be that Copenhagen, the host city of the Climate Conference, has more limousines than buses? I know Paul Miller at Arizona Bus Sales has a great inventory of buses that should be part of any real climate conference…call him and park the limos; at least make it appear that you are environmentally savvy. Imagine the contribution that using one bus instead of fifty limousines would make towards the goal of greenhouse gas reduction. Why it might even lend some legitimacy to the conference!

In sheer irony, the average American would probably have to live more than a thousand years to equal the “carbon footprint” produced by just transporting the delegates to the climate conference. Isn’t funny how the people that are most involved with leading the charge on global warming love to use private planes and limousines; arguably the most inefficient and ecologically harmful way to travel? Al Gore refused to comment on that observation as he boarded his private jet, giving us the appearance that we are not worthy of an answer and adding the charge of elitist to hypocrite.

Of course, if the member nations were serious about reducing CO2 emissions, they would have teleconferenced instead but then they would miss all of the opulence and splendor that comes with being a visiting head of state; it appears they are more interested in the conference parties than being a part of the conference. Despite the best effort of Copenhagen’s mayor prior to the conference, I’m sure there was an appreciable increase in CO2 emissions from the “red light district” too, as delegates produced billowing clouds of heavy breathing far from the critics at home. To add insult to injury, I’m sure they got there by limousine too.

The most disturbing revelation of the conference came from the speech that Hugo Chavez made and the standing ovation he received for spouting out more anti-capitalist / pro-Marxist rhetoric. Mr. Chavez took the podium and said:

“One could say, Mr. President, that a ghost is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a ghost is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that ghost walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this ghost is a terrible ghost almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the ghost, almost nobody wants to mention it. It’s capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them.

Socialism, the other ghost Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-ghost. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt.”
Hugo Chavez

Thank You Mr. Chavez, for making my point. Global warming is not about warming at all, but about the global spread of Marxism. Climate change is not about the climate, it is about a forced change in political ideology. The only reason why our government is playing along with this now is that Democrats control the Congress, Progressive Marxists control the Democrats and the current President is, after all, a former Democratic Congressman and a Progressive Marxist. Some of Obama’s advisors like Carol Browner, belonged to Socialist International, a group dedicated to the creation of a global government under Marxist ideals. Van Jones, Obama’s former green jobs Czar was a self proclaimed and admitted Communist. Cass Sunstein promotes the use of climate legislation to redistribute American wealth and industry to other nations and John Holdren believes we should take drastic steps including forced sterilization and abortion to reduce earth’s population. Everyone in the Obama administration speaks of the world first and America second, exemplifying their real agenda.

In short, the inmates are running the asylum and the Marxist globalists smell blood in the water. They believe that with Obama’s help, the Capitalist pillars that support America will crumble and then we can enter a new era, complete with a single world government that will spread earth’s resources and man’s wealth in an equal, but very thin blanket. Of course our jet setting Copenhagen delegates will be exempt from that marginalized existence just as they are now. The elite will never suffer, especially if a day comes when they have control of everything you used to own.

Paul

Copenhagen Unwittingly Exposes Climate Fraud

The climate conference in Copenhagen is becoming a running commentary on everything I told you it would be. Ironically, thousands of arriving delegates had to stand outside in freezing rain, snow and bitterly cold temperatures while conference personnel sorted out their registration difficulties. Apparently the body of nations that wants to impose international rule over the evils of industrial societies do not possess the required brain power to realize that you cannot fit the invited 45,000 delegates in a building designed for a maximum occupancy of 12,000 people. How encouraging.

There were more headlines Monday as a contingent of poorer nations stormed out of the negotiations because their demands for money were not being adequately addressed. In somewhat of an eco-reparations scheme, they contend that since industrial nations have already produced nearly two centuries of greenhouse gas, we should pay them (handsomely) because they haven’t. While it’s true that pre-industrial and developing nations emit very little greenhouse gas, this is not proof of their ecological prowess; it is a commentary on their corrupt governance.

Many of these nations have failed to develop because their war-lord leaders steal as much as possible from their own people and that has stalled any growth of their economy or industry. Pre-conference estimates said the climate accords could eventually result in a massive redistribution of wealth from prosperous nations to the poorer nations of as much as $145 Trillion dollars. Even if that were true, it is doubtful that this money would be used to develop environment friendly infrastructure in those countries as advertised. Instead, I envision massive retrofits of the palatial dwellings of hundreds of war-lords and totalitarian leaders while the people of those nations continue to live in squalor; cooking their meager meals on fires of dried ox dung.

The talks were not quite as lucrative for those poor nations as they had expected and the commitment for that kind of transfer of wealth was just not fleshing out. I don’t blame them for being upset. I am a regular Power Ball player so I understand their disappointment. I was checking numbers on a recent ticket I had purchased and had the first three in a row. I had envisioned all the ways I was going to spend my fortune before realizing that those were the only three numbers I was going to get and my fortune would be a mere seven dollars. Of course the delegates’ walkout only lasted a couple of hours since global warming hasn’t quite reached Copenhagen and the temperatures were below freezing outside of the conference hall.

There were also massive demonstrations all around the conference area demanding immediate action to “save the planet”. Curiously, the angry mobs were carrying flags adorned with the Communist Hammer and Sickle which may have shocked Danish police, but really shouldn’t surprise anyone that regularly reads this blog. Marxists have long recognized that the climate movement is the best possible vehicles to have capitalist nations commit suicide, eventually forcing their people in to socialism to survive. Apparently, climate-gate had the same catastrophic result for die hard communist intentions that the fall of the Berlin Wall had. You see, not everyone cheered at the collapse of the Soviet Union. For these throw-backs to the days of Stalin, hysteria over global warming was supposed to mean a resurgence of Marxism while us silly westerners cut our own financial throats to save the planet.

The President plans to attend the last day of the conference and rumors say that he will offer guarantees that the United States will commit to a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020; a guarantee he has no authority to make unless he plans to scrap the Constitution and negate its requirement that international treaties must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. Apparently that is the plan, at least in spirit. According to Robert Creamer’s book, “Stand up Straight, How Progressives Can Win”, one of his strategies to advance progressive agendas is to create a crisis and then offer the people the lesser of two evils as a solution. You remember Robert Creamer, the husband of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)? He wrote this book while serving a prison sentence for attempting to defraud banks of $2.3 million to keep his insolvent progressive activist group afloat.

The lessons in his book have not fallen on deaf ears. Obama’s chief political advisor, David Axelrod, calls the book a “blueprint” for progressive victory. Well I suppose it’s comforting that the White House understands the concept of victory even if they have no intention of applying the discipline to foreign affairs. Now that Cap and Trade had been called dead on arrival, the President’s appointed hit man (or should I say hit person), Lisa Jackson of the EPA is issuing her ultimatum to Congress. Without Cap and Trade, warns Ms. Jackson, the EPA will exercise its authority under the Clean Air Act and begin the process of regulating CO2 production as a function of “command and control”. The threat is a clear assault by this administration against the authority of Congress and the most blatant misuse of government power to date.

The “deal” Lisa Jackson offered is that the EPA can enact regulatory control over the production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses without the market based initiatives that would allow the trade of carbon credits, effectively shutting down all industry in the United States (The evil plan) or Congress can pass Cap and Trade that promises to damage business, raise energy costs for everyone, raise taxes and put millions out of work (the lesser of the two evils plan). How about door number three? If Congress can find the will (and the courage) to face this President and his radical advisors, they can pass a single page bill excluding CO2 from the Clean Air Act. Sure, that would result in law suits between environmentalists, the EPA and the Federal government but at least we could focus on getting millions of people off unemployment and putting them back to work while they sort the logistics out in the courts for the next forty years. If Congress fails to restrain the EPA, millions more will be out of work and our financial system will finally collapse.

Don’t forget the premise of Cap and Trade was meant to reduce global warming and have the added benefit of bringing America into a 21st century “green” economy. We now know through leaked e-mails and documents that “global warming” is the largest hoax ever perpetrated against the people of the world and that the latest verifiable data shows the earth is actually cooling. Besides the mitigation of global warming, we are being promised that if Cap and Trade passes that another main goal is to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil as we shift to renewable and non-polluting energy sources such as solar and wind power. Do you really think that can happen on a national level when environmental groups are filing one law suit after another effectively ceasing all major wind and solar projects now?

A recent project to install wind generating facilities in one of this nation’s desert regions, was brought to a screeching halt be one such law suit. The suit maintains that the installation would destroy the desert environment, ruin the natural beauty and affect a multitude of endangered species. It seems the only species that environmentalist are not concerned with are humans so even renewable, clean energy projects are being fought because that would allow us to continue to thrive. Desert lizards are far more deserving than we are and according to the most radical environmentalists, the loss of billions of humans would only begin to restore balance to the planet.

The reality of the situation has not deterred the White House and according to them, we are going to reduce CO2 production no matter how bad it is for the nation and how phony the science of global warming is found to be. The EPA declared its endangerment finding based on the reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC reports were constructed using the data prepared by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia; data that was proven to be manipulated and manufactured by those damaging e-mails that were released by an unknown whistle blower. Even though there is now concrete evidence that opposing scientific views were not only ignored but the scientists that brought them to the table were intentionally discredited; even thought there is concrete evidence that the work of the CRU and the IPCC was a calculated lie designed to provide proof of global warming by rigging the data to hide historical fluctuations in climate prior to industrial pollution, the push for climate legislation and EPA regulation continues.

It will not stop there. As if taking over the banking industry, the auto industry, the healthcare industry and now the regulation of CO2 was not enough to prove this administration is seeking to cultivate incredible power in violation of the Constitution; the Congress is now discussing amending the Clean Water Restoration Act. The CWRA currently gives the Federal government regulatory control over all navigable waters in and around the United States. The proposed amendment would expand that regulatory authority to ALL waters in and around the United States. Wetlands, streams, lakes, farm ponds, wells, aquifers; even dry washes that only carry water once every ten years would then be subject to Federal regulation.

What is going on here? The Constitution is being trashed before our eyes and the government is actively seizing control of food, water, jobs and healthcare….everything that would make it possible for the citizens to mount a successful opposition to the dismantling of our way of life. After all, how far would a citizen revolt get without money, food or water? None of this is by chance and if there were any doubts, we now know with certainty what Obama meant when he declared before Election Day, that we were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. I see a lot that is being transformed and if they are successful, the Constitution will be relegated to the dust bin of history and replaced with a new document that will bring all of us to our knees. If we let them do that, what will you tell your children and grandchildren when they ask you why?

Paul

Political Correctness - I'll just stick with correct, thank you.

The earliest mention of something that is not politically correct is found in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Georgia (1793). In 1792 in South Carolina, Alexander Chisholm, the executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, attempted to sue the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over payments due him for goods that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. United States Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued the case for the plaintiff before the Court. The defendant, Georgia, refused to appear, claiming that as a "sovereign" a state did not have to appear in court to hear a suit against it to which it did not consent.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chisholm but the particular phrase in the argument we are interested in today is:” The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention. . . . Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? [To] ‘The United States’, instead of [to] the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.”

In this case, the reference to political correctness involved a point of law. The States often forget that they exist for the sake of the people and while a sovereign entity within the United States, that sovereignty does not insulate them from their responsibility to the people they serve. It is obvious that in the 18th century, political correctness meant exactly what it sounded like; a political stance that was legally correct under the generally accepted interpretation of law.

Marxism would pervert the meaning of “correctness”, much as it does everything else it touches. According to Marxist ideology, “correct” is anything that is in keeping with the will of the central party. The notion that the State would conform to a set standard of law for the good of the people had been lost as the central party became a new class of ruling elite. The set standard of law was replaced with a notion of dynamic law that would allow the laws to adapt as the party’s needs changed. In the end, the party, not the people could only prevail since the party was responsible for issuing the newest interpretation of law as often as was needed.

Political correctness didn’t begin to take the form we know today until the counter culture emerged in 1960’s America and began to describe a manner of thought consistent with liberal ideology as “politically correct”. Much as today, the radical left had so overused the notion of political correctness that even moderate liberals found it laughable and a cause for ridicule. It wasn’t until the 1990’s until the term political correctness became a pejorative used by the right to describe the extremes in liberal thought.

Most of what we know about political correctness today is the idiotic fear of offending anyone. The enlightened wordsmiths of our more liberal Universities constantly regurgitate a stream of new “non-offensive” descriptions for nearly everything that is human or has been affected by human behavior. Indians are now “Native Americans” even though anthropologists can trace their roots all across Asia and eventually into the African continent. Anyone that has a modest degree of education in modern man knows that “Native Americans” are as native to North America as the Europeans are.

Every known human malady or frailty is now considered a “challenge”. Despite accurate clinical descriptions that gauge mental ability based on medical criteria, anyone that falls below the norm is “mentally challenged” because the clinical names for each degree of disability is considered by the “enlightened”, to be demeaning.

Other human descriptors are expected to display compassion, tolerance and acceptance. Then there is the whole arena of “people first” language issues. No matter who or what you are, it is now considered important to recognize that you are a person first as if that somehow makes a difference. Short people are now “people of small stature”; minorities are “people of color” and the disabled are now “people with disabilities” of course. I suppose the only exception to that rule is being fat. Apparently every attempt to find a kinder, gentler way of saying fat didn’t meet with the approval of the afflicted so they are taking a completely different route.

1968, the NAAFA or The National Association to Aid Fat Americans was founded by William Fabrey to provide social activities for the large. As the group shifted to political activism, it changed names in the 1980’s and became The NAAFA (The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance). The NAAFA works to eliminate discrimination based on body size and provide fat people with the tools for self-empowerment through public education, advocacy, and member support. In short, their membership is fat and you had just better accept it.

Truthfully, I really don’t care what people want to call themselves. If dropping one name for another allows people to embrace help for a particular condition or it just plain makes them feel better about themselves, then more power to them. My argument with political correctness is a deeper and more dangerous manifestation.

As a nation, political correctness is in its fiftieth year of its mission to completely disable the American people from being to state with conviction that something is right or wrong. We are being forced to accept the unacceptable in the name of tolerance and now under the threat of “hate crimes”. Slowly the definition of a hate crime is being changed from protection against violent acts perpetrated in the name of bigotry to a whole host of new crimes based on…you guessed it…the spoken word. Regardless of your convictions, the right to be a freak has taken precedence over the rights of society to establish a standard of normality and those that speak out on moral grounds or on the grounds of conservative ideology are being methodically attacked as spewing hate speech.

To me, there is a big difference between saying “This is wrong” and expressing an idea that promotes violent action. However, the left now has the new monopoly on morality and the conventional ideals that this country was founded on have now been replaced with their “superior mantra” of acceptance and tolerance. Do not forget that Aristotle once said that “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Once a society has lost the ability to speak openly against dangerous and perverted acts, it is not long before demoralization dissolves the last threads that bind its peoples together.

Of course, even the champions of tolerance need an enemy to coalesce their power base. After all, how could you possibly bring attention to your cause if there wasn’t someone to rally against? The tolerant left has no tolerance for Judeo-Christian religions, pro-life beliefs, conservative ideals or American patriotism. Religion has openly been the target for the so-called tolerant in America since the 1950’s when the ACLU backed every half-witted law suit to drive religion from any and all, public venues. The same suspects fight every battle against pro-life groups and protect those that burn flags as a legitimate form of protest.

This is the most dangerous path that the left have taken us down. We are at a critical juncture in our history as our very existence is challenged by crippling debt and a failing economy. We provide fertility services to the poor but cannot guarantee the right to be born once conceived. We protect the rights of Muslims against “dangerous speech” but not the rights of Catholic churches to refuse gay marriages based on clear edicts within their holiest book. We protect the habitat of a Spotted Owl while private homes are being seized by the state under manifest destiny; not for public use, but to provide an incentive for corporations to build new facilities.

If you ask me, the mass shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech had little to do with gun control and were caused entirely by the elimination of traditional morals in our schools and society. What is there to stop disturbed or depressed individuals from committing these heinous crimes if there is no belief in a life beyond this one especially if we are no longer allowed the ability to guide people into a socially acceptable model of human behavior because we can no longer say…”This is wrong”.

Paul

Another Nail in the Coffin

So here we are. Another nail-biter as Harry Reid prepares to see if he can “pull a Pelosi” and force a vote on healthcare in yet another Saturday session. We have all seen the crazy things in this legislation and outside of the Democratic Party, there are few good things to be said about it. The National Debt has just topped twelve trillion dollars and the CBO estimates on the debt say it will double to twenty-four trillion by 2019. The sad part is their estimates do not include anything from the Healthcare or Cap and Trade/Climate bills.

Oh yes, Reid says it is “budget neutral” but the House already passed a separate contingency bill to cover the so-called “doctor fix”. That is an additional $270 billion dollars that should have been part of the healthcare bill but they decided to peel that off and pass it separately. If it were included, the healthcare bill wouldn’t be budget neutral anymore and that wouldn’t do. In just another slight of hand from the criminals in Congress, they just snuck that through while you weren’t looking so the CBO could give healthcare a favorable projection. That doesn’t change the fact that the CBO has been historically wrong on everything they score and the miscalculations end up costing the taxpayers seven to ten times more than the legislation was originally scored at.

So if this is such a bad bill, the “worst bill ever written” according to the Wall Street Journal, then why are the Democrats still pushing for this? Don’t forget that this is not the Democratic Party your father knew. That was the party of the blue collar American; the Party of JFK and Truman. The Democratic Party is now the home of the left of the left; the political radicals. All eighty-three members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are Democrats and the progressive agenda is a verse and chapter copy of the socialist movement.

Universal healthcare is one of the master links in the chains of socialist control. Many progressives in Congress have openly admitted that a “public option” is the best way to achieve a single payer, universal healthcare system because at the heart of the public option is a subsidized payment structure designed to drive private insurance out of business. The elimination of private insurance is critical to their plan because the goal is not really your care but rather, the nationalization of a huge segment of the United States economy. The next target is the energy industry through cap and trade.

Cap and Trade, otherwise known as the Climate bill, will decimate the coal and oil industries in this nation leaving the technological drive to clean energy in the hands of the government. The Climate bill will create a gap in energy production that will force the government to curb your personal usage as yet another government created crisis befalls the American people. If cap and trade become law, the effect on American industry will be catastrophic and then it will be a short step for the government to step in and take over entire industries for the “good of the nation” and this ties right in with our new Presidents fundamental ideas.

If you recall, Obama isn’t just the President of the United States. He is the first President that understands our global obligations. He reaches out to terrorists and dictators so we can finally have a dialogue with them. He is (in his own words) the first “Pacific” President, kowtowing to Asian interests. He is the first President that admitted in his own memoirs that he gravitated towards Marxist professors in college and that obviously proved helpful to him as he taught the strategies of Saul Alinsky when he became a professor himself. He has surrounded himself with left leaning radicals that share the common goal of a global socialist system of government and economics.

As he prepared for his run for the Presidency, Obama was asked if he believes in reparations for slavery. I have to at least say he was honest when he replied “No, I don’t believe in reparations because reparations don’t go far enough.” He is a man of his word because the agenda his administration is championing is a single-minded drive for the largest redistribution of wealth in American history. That redistribution is not the old Robin Hood principals of LBJ that stole from the rich and gave to the poor right here in America. Obama’s plan reaches far beyond that and cap and trade is ultimately a tool to redistribute large portions of America’s wealth and industrial capabilities to foreign countries. Of course our largest corporations (and Obama contributors) like GE don’t mind because they are multi-nationals and American money flowing into nations with no existing infrastructure would mean huge opportunities for them no matter what happens to the folks at home.

Just ask yourself one question….if Obama was not a global Marxist at heart would he have appointed so many blatantly radical Marxists to positions of power within his administration? We’ve already talked about Carol Browner, Climate Czar and former member of Socialist International and John Holdren, Science Czar and author of books that espoused forced sterilization and forced abortion to limit population growth but who have we forgotten?

Ron Bloom, Obama administration, Manufacturing Czar:
“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, 'cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

Anita Dunn, Obama administration, White House Communications Director:
"... two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point...”

Van Jones, Obama administration, Former Green Jobs Czar:
“This movement is deeper than a solar panel! Deeper than a solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! We're gonna change the whole system! We're gonna change the whole thing. We want a new system. We want a new system!”

Mark Lloyd, Obama Administration, FCC Chief Diversity Officer:
"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela….The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country. “

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Lloyd is in fact a Saul Alinsky disciple. In his 2006 book entitled “Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America”, he calls for an all-out "confrontational movement" against private media. He wants leftist activists - through incessant political pressure - and the government - through the creation of a totally untenable operating environment of fees, fines and regulations - to work together to force the commercial broadcasters out, to be replaced by public broadcasters.

It is clear through his own statements that he admires socialist dictator Hugo Chavez and intends to “tweak” our First Amendment to insure that those pesky journalists, radio personalities and yes, even bloggers won’t interfere in Obama’s own “incredible revolution”. If threatening the First Amendment isn’t enough to scare you, did you notice that little dig about the “private land owners” in Venezuela that tried to oust Chavez? I have learned the hard way that nothing these people say is an accident and if he felt the need to refer to private land owners in a passing comment, you can be damned sure that personal property rights are just as much in question now as private healthcare insurance is.

According to Columnist Paul R. Hollrah, "After arriving at Occidental College (in Los Angeles), Obama chose his friends carefully. He tells us in his memoir that, among his friends he included "the more politically active black students, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors, feminists, and punk rock performance poets."

"Then, after transferring to Columbia University two years later, he found that "political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful," took on the flavor of the "socialist conferences" he sometimes attended at New York's Coopers Union.""As Obama was preparing to graduate from Columbia he wasn't sure what he wanted to do with the rest of his life. Finally, in 1983, he decided to follow in the footsteps of one of his heroes, radical leftist and communist fellow traveler, Saul Alinsky.

Andy Stern, another believer in Alinsky and President of SEIU, has visited the White House twenty-two times since Obama was sworn in. This is the same Andy Stern that was recently quoted as saying “Workers of the world unite is no longer just a saying.” Hmmm? I wonder what he meant by that?

Paul

It's The Economy Stupid

The economy is in shambles, unemployment is at a twenty-six year high, the stock market fluctuates wildly with every new headline and Congressional approval is at its lowest point in decades. So why doesn’t the Federal government appear to “get it”? Since Barack Obama took office, there isn’t one thing that his administration or this Congress has done that makes sense in these difficult times. People are baffled as to why Democrats are still pressing for healthcare and climate legislation that would be difficult for a healthy economy to absorb and that is counterintuitive to any meaningful action that should be taken in a distressed economy.

The Republican’s claimed a victory in the recent gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia when if fact, they have no right to that claim. The latest polls indicate that neither Party has gained favor with the American people and the grass roots have adopted a “throw the bums out” attitude that will permeate the political landscape in 2010. Chris Christie and Robert McDonnell did not win because they were Republicans; they won because even though they had both held political jobs in the past, their most recent positions were as US Attorney for Chris Christie and as Virginia Attorney General for Robert McDonnell, which effectively distanced them from the body politic.

Neither the Bush nor the Obama Stimulus plans have yielded measurable results even though both had taken different directions. The Bush administration issued payments directly to taxpayers to stimulate the consumer market while the Obama plan targeted Cities and States to boost public work projects. While the payments were directed at different segments of the economy they both had the same result, or lack of results, because the private and public sectors have something sadly in common. They are both in debt up to their eyeballs. The stimulus money received by taxpayers had been used for the most part, to pay off old debt. Credit cards and other consumer debt was what was most on the mind of the recipients. Similarly, the Obama payments to States and Cities went largely to close budget gaps created by shrinking tax revenues. That is why the administration had to shift their measure of success from job creation to how many jobs were saved, something that no one believes because it is impossible to prove.

Worse yet, is that the Federal Reserve began printing money equal to the amount of the Stimulus bill in spite of promises that they would not monetize the debt. That has already caused a 17% devaluation of the dollar that has many of our foreign creditors deeply concerned as American debt continues to rise. Candidate Obama spoke harshly about the $460 billion dollar Bush budget deficit while President Obama, proposed and passed a $3.6 trillion dollar budget which has ballooned his budget deficit to a record breaking $1.4 trillion dollars. Americans are well aware that this insanity cannot continue yet that epiphany somehow has not yet reached the collective consciousness of the members of Congress.

The President and the Democrats in Congress continue to push legislation for both healthcare reform and the climate that will place incredible strains on an already suffering economy. The employer mandates and taxes threatened by these two bills has placed the job market in a stall as employers wait to see what they will have to face before they will commit to anything that may increase their liabilities. It is in fact, the Federal government that has created this recession. The collapse of the banking industry has its roots in the Clinton administration when banks were forced under penalty of law to make high risk loans to low income families to bring “fairness” to home ownership. These loans would eventually fail just as the banking industry warned they would and now the Fed is punishing banks for engaging in risky business practices.

The fact is that the government can only create jobs by reducing the tax burden on business and by getting out of the way of the people that actually create the jobs. The Federal government is charged with regulating interstate commerce however, the definition of “regulation” at the time of the drafting of our Constitution was not to license, tax or control business, it was to “make regular” the interaction so that business dealings were uniform across state lines. While none would argue the need to extend regulatory control to insure public safety, every other regulation and tax placed on business has been little more than an impediment to the economic engine that drives this nation.

Healthcare reform promises an 8% payroll tax and a millionaire’s tax of an additional 5% to pay for portions of this massive government takeover of the healthcare industry. This has had the net effect of a nation-wide hiring freeze until businesses are sure the bill is dead and they are safe. Ironically, just as the Fed created the banking crisis, they also created the healthcare crisis. It is Federal prohibitions that prevent healthcare insurers from competing across state lines and that his strangled competition. The Fed also prevents small business from enjoying the same tax breaks for providing healthcare that large companies do. Could that be because large companies are unionized and in many cases, it is the unions that create the healthcare group and are paid to administrate it? We know that unions pay an awful lot of money to political parties and candidates; the same parties and candidates that keep the restrictions on healthcare in place. Those restrictions keep the cost of insurance high and make unions and union healthcare plans look very attractive to non-union workers.

The cost of healthcare insurance is also deeply affected by the reimbursement rate of Medicare and Medicaid to healthcare providers. Medicare reimbursement for services is between 70% and 80% of the billed amount. Medicaid is even lower. As hospitals and doctors struggle with the government induced shortages, those costs are eventually shifted to patients with private insurance as their budget issues force prices even higher. As insurance sees higher costs, they must raise premiums. The insurance company profits Democrats quote only seem high because they represent the accumulated profits of a multitrillion dollar industry. The bottom line for healthcare insurance companies are actually around 3% which is hardly considered a windfall in anyone’s book.

The frightening part is that the top 1% of income earners that Obama keeps targeting are actually wealthy enough that they really don’t have to play the redistribution game if they don’t want to. Stocks sales are volatile but hardly robust as once again, potential investors are waiting to see how much of their money they will actually get to keep. They could easily retire very comfortably on what they have and move to a country where the weather is pleasant, the dollar is stronger and the political winds aren’t blowing at hurricane force against them. We are already seeing a “tax exodus” from New York, New Jersey and California as the rate of taxation rises on the “wealthy”. If they would leave a State, is it really inconceivable that they would leave the nation if our fiscal policies towards the wealthy continue to turn from pestilent to confiscatory? If they do, who would the “top 1%” be then?

We are at a crossroads in American culture. The so-called progressive tax structure has created a condition where 47% of the people in this country pay no taxes at all. A portion of that 47% actually receive an “earned income credit” which is nothing more than the forced payment of money from one group of Americans to another and many have no idea where this money comes from other than the government. The Democrats have spent nearly the last hundred years pitting the poor against the wealthy in this country and our immigration policies see to it that the poor in this nation continue to grow in number. Once the number of taxpayers drop below 50%, the poor will have the political might to keep those in power that will finish their work of emptying the treasury to subsidize ever growing portions of the population, eventually forcing our nation into socialism or worse.

Paul

Anita Dunn and the Ministry of Idiotic Remarks

As in the old movies about Ali Baba and the Arabian Nights, I feel as though we are suffering the death of ten-thousand cuts. The efforts on the part of the Obama administration to forward his socialist agenda are relentless and just watching the news these days has become nerve wracking. Since I am convinced that nothing these people do is coincidental, I am assuming that this sensory overload is part of the strategy to wear people out and dissolve our resistance to his plans.

Now we have Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director taking Van Jones place as the “Minister of Idiotic Remarks”. Do these people not have filters or are they so convinced that America is ready for socialism that we would welcome people that openly proclaim their admiration for Mao Zedong any where near the White House? On June 5, 2009, Ms. Dunn delivered a speech to a group of high school students in which she stated "... two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point...”

So when did a mass murderer and communist revolutionary become a “political philosopher”? Mao's policies and political purges from 1949-1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of roughly seventy-million people. That is five million more than all the deaths attributed to World War II. Van Jones at least had the decency to tell us quite plainly, that he was a communist but when Anita Dunn was caught on film making a statement like this, her only answer so far is that she was “only kidding.” This is from the same crowd that as recently as last week, were throwing fits over a film clip taken from a docudrama of Hitler’s final days in the bunker where text was dubbed in over the film suggesting that he was in a rant over Senate Democrats dropping the “public option”. If Anita Dunn can joke about Mao Zedong then I would imagine that Hitler humor would be equally acceptable.

Any rational person knows that Hitler is not appropriate material for jokes about political discourse and neither is Mao Zedong. She claims that it was actually a quote she ironically “picked up” from the late Republican strategist, Lee Atwater. Mr. Atwater, as politicians often do, quoted many people from history including Mao Zedong, but he never said that Zedong was a “political philosopher”, favorite or otherwise. Ms. Dunn apparently has the same issues with telling the truth that her boss does.

The truth is, I don’t believe she was joking. I honestly believe that she does consider Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers. Look at the company she keeps in the White House. Van Jones. Oh I know he resigned from his position as “green jobs” Czar but since there are no updates as to his whereabouts and his bio on web sources has still not been updated, it makes me wonder if his public resignation as green jobs Czar opened another door for him somewhere in a hidden recess of the Obama “shadow” government.

Jones, a self avowed communist, advocated the use of environmental legislation to take money from Peter to pay…well, ACORN, SEIU and a hundred other Community based programs and organizations in the largest scheme to redistribute wealth since Johnson’s “Great Society”. He was unashamed as he spouted out racial venom while he described his plans to mutate climate legislation into a giant pot of cash to fund his twisted idea of long overdue social justice.

Then there is John Holdren. Oh I’m sure he admires Mao Zedong as well. After all, Holdren co-authored a book that spelled out the dangers of over population and the draconian methods he would use to reduce the population before we further endanger the planet. Nothing was out of the question including using the weight of government to force abortion and sterilization. Redefining abortion so that we could “expediently” eliminate mentally challenged children up to the age of two and withholding live saving care from elderly individuals that were no longer productive members of society. Actually, Holdren probably doesn’t admire Zedong because I doubt he would think that Mao went far enough to solve the overpopulation problem. In Mr. Holdren’s estimation, seventy-million is two or three billion short.

Let’s not forget Cass Sunstein our “regulatory” Czar. Cass is another one that thinks that American wealth should be redistributed, not to minority communities but to the entire third world. The vehicle for that redistribution? The climate bill of course. It looks like Cass and Van will have to play “rock, paper, scissors” to see who wins that argument; then again, maybe not. I’m sure the climate bill will generate enough in fines, fees and taxes to cover both schools of thought and Carol Browner will see to that.

Carol Browner is our “global warming” Czar; or at least she was since that title may change. Now that data is leaking out that Al Gore kind of stretched the truth about global warming the left is leaning towards the term “climate change” instead of global warming. You see, the highest recorded temperatures took place during the 1930’s and the temperature has been dropping since then. Then there is that nasty little “inconvenient truth” that there appears to be an increase of seasonal ice at the poles instead of a decrease. In Antarctica, while the northern shore shows receding ice, that pesky southern shore is accumulating an additional five feet of thickness in the ice cap per year.

Anyway, Carol Browner doesn’t really care about the legislative process. She has already made her intentions known. Both Carol Browner and Al Gore said that if cap and trade are not passed and if the UN climate pact is not ratified that they will take their case before the Supreme Court to force implementation of the most insidious parts of these legislative nightmares under existing EPA authority. Ms. Browner knows all about the EPA. She was the EPA Chief under both terms of Bill Clinton’s Presidency. In fact, when she left that office as George W. Bush was sworn in, Ms. Browner and other high ranking officials of the EPA deleted all of the files on the computers in violation of a court order to protect that data. The EPA was subsequently sited for contempt of court but no one has been able to answer what those files consisted of or why they felt it was so important to dispose of them. Could it possibly have been accurate climate data? The data Al Gore has been feverishly working to dismiss as rubbish?

Many Congressmen are concerned about the “Czar situation”. Senator Richard Byrd actually wrote a letter to the White House stating his concerns that the Czars have escaped the Constitutional mandate for Congressional oversight and have engaged in activities that are in fact, obscuring and withholding vital information from Congressional committees.

But many would still accuse me of being over-dramatic and alarmist. Why would I believe that Anita Dunn is suspect simply because of her remarks concerning Mao Zedong? If the few radical Czars I mentioned above (and there are more) do not sway you, then what about the friends of Obama that could never have made it into the White House no matter how much he would have loved to have them at his side? Bill Ayers, co-founder of the radical domestic terror cell, the Weather Underground. Obama launched his campaign for the Presidency from Mr. Ayers’ living room. To spite Obama’s assertions that he “barely knew” Bill Ayers, it appears now that Mr. Ayers also helped Obama write his book “Dreams from my Father”.

The other co-founder of the Weather Underground was Jeff Jones. Jeff Jones is the chair of the New York chapter of the Apollo Alliance of which our dear friend Van Jones is a member of the board. The Apollo Alliance was recently credited by Harry Reid with assisting your legislators in writing key portions of the Stimulus Bill. The same Stimulus Bill that will eventually funnel up to eight and a half billion dollars to community based organizations such as ACORN and the Apollo Alliance. The same Stimulus Bill that John Conyers, actually most of Congress, didn’t have the time to read before they voted on it.

The associations with this President read like a “who’s who” of radical Marxism and now we are supposed to believe that Anita Dunn was only joking about her admiration for Mao Zedong? That is the real joke; and a really, really bad joke at that.

Paul