Skip navigation

Tag Archives: LIBERALS

Obama Biden Watch – Volume 1 Issue 1 – January 2009

In This Issue:

  • Obama’s Inaugural Address Falls Flat?
  • Change We Can Believe In? Looks Like the Usual Suspects!
  • Obama’s First Actions Not Making America Safer
  • Geithner’s Tax Problems
  • Obama-Blagojevich Report Contradicts Public Record
  • Political Panetta at CIA?
  • Pelosi’s Power Grab
  • Bill Richardson Out As Commerce Secretary
  • Citizens United Productions Presents: Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny Documentary
  • Final Thoughts from Citizens United President David N. Bossie

Stay tuned for more updates as we will be updating this site frequently.

Copyright 2009 by Citizens United


Dick Morris: Secret Poll Data Shows Obama Care Can Be Stopped


The Patriot Update <alerts@patriotupdate.com>

Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 18:54

Reply-To: alerts@patriotupdate.com

To: “supergramps.duane@gmail.com” <supergramps.duane@gmail.com>

Dear Reader:

Congressional Democrats and Barack Obama are on the verge of passing the most radical takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy ever undertaken.

The Obamacare “reform” plan not only imperils our economy, it will wreak havoc on your health and well-being. Imagine a government bureaucrat deciding whether you or a loved one getting a life-saving medical procedure!

Dick Morris, the chief strategist of the League of American Voters, has discovered that a key reason polls show some support for the Obama program is that young voters are ignorant of its dangers and costs.

Dick has a plan for us to reach young voters. We need to implement this plan soon and we need your financial support and membership.

Remember, Dick and the League was outfront on the importance of exposing Obamacare to elderly voters. We have won that battle — as most Seniors strongly oppose Obamacare.

Now we must fight to educate our young people.

Please help us do this and donate — Go Here Now.

And please read Dick’s important column about this effort below.

Bob Adams
Executive Director


NEW FRONT ON OBAMACARE: THE YOUNG

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

As the healthcare fight reaches the Senate floor, we took a new national survey to figure out how best to battle against this proposal that would so deform our nation’s vital healthcare system. We found out how to do it: Reach young people.

Our work, and that of the League of American Voters – with whom we are affiliated but have no financial relationship – have been aimed at the elderly in the past few months. As a result of these and other efforts, the elderly now oppose Obamacare by more than twenty points (31-54 in our poll). The survey shows that we have about gotten all the support from them we are going to get. Some of those over 65 are just masochists who will sit by and watch their Medicare and Medicare Advantage get shredding to bits.

But voters under 30 are a different story. The polling showed that they start off supporting Obamacare more than any other age group:

But, it turns out their strong 2:1 support for the program is based on an almost total ignorance of what it calls for.

After we read them (in the poll) a fair and unbiased description of the program, their support faded.

Here’s what we read to them:

The healthcare bill, pushed by President Obama and the Democrats, would require everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for failing to do so.

People could keep their current insurance if their employer provided it and agreed to continue it. Insurance companies would be required to insure all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions. People would be offered subsidies to buy insurance if their household incomes were below $70,000 a year and if their insurance cost more than 8% of their incomes ($5600 for a $70,000 a year family). The program will cost one trillion over ten years.

This plain vanilla rendition of what Obama proposes had a startling impact! Voters under 30, who had approved of the plan by 58-30 before they heard the description, now backed it by only 55-40, a loss of 13 points!

Then we read voters a list of all the arguments pro and con on the bill. We alternated the arguments to be sure that nobody could see any bias in the poll. After the arguments, the views of all other age groups were largely unchanged. But people under 30 now said they opposed the bill by 43-45 – a mega-shift of 30 points!

So…our strategy will be to replicate this process, only in reality.

We will run television and radio ads and Internet messages aimed at young voters to educate them about this bill.

Will the Congressional Democrats listen? Without the support of the young, polls will reflect the massive unpopularity of this bill. With each drop in its approval, you can hear the liberals groan. If the polling shows approval dropping into the 30s – and as young people switch it will – we can defeat this bill on the floor!

Based on the same polling techniques I use to win elections, we have discovered Obama’s vulnerable underbelly – his base of uninformed young voters. And we will hammer away — with your help.

This process won’t be inexpensive. It costs a lot to reach young people, but with your financial help, we can do it.

Please GO HERE NOW and give as generously as you can. The healthcare you save might very well be your own!

Note from the League: We need to prepare a new TV ad and internet campaign exposing the dangers of Obamacare to young Americans. Help Dick Morris complete this plan. Donate today — Go Here Now.

Paid for by the League of American Voters. Contributions to the League of American Voters are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from individuals and corporations are permitted by law and welcome.

League of American Voters    |    722 12th Street N.W.    |    Fourth Floor    |    Washington, D.C. 20005

For Information about Advertising, Click Here www.patriotupdate.com

Forward to a Friend
SmartUnsubscribesm
This email was sent to supergramps.duane@gmail.com by alerts@patriotupdate.com

Update Profile/Email Address | SmartUnsubscribesm from this list | Privacy Policy

The Bogus Death Statistic That Won’t Die
By Michelle Malkin
October 23, 2009

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly.” Next, he likened health insurance problems to a “holocaust in America.” Now, he’s unveiled a new website entitled “namesofthedead.com” in memory of the “more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance.”

Just one problem: The statistic is a phantom number. Grayson’s memorial, like the Democrats’ government health care takeover plan itself, is full of vapor. It comes from a study published this year in the American Journal of Public Health. But the science is infused with left-wing politics.

Two of the co-authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which bills itself as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.

Sounding more like a MoveOn.org organizer than a disinterested scientist, Woolhandler assailed the current health reform legislation in Congress for not going far enough: “Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives.”

How did these political doctors come up with the 44,000 figure? They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants whether they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Himmelstein, Woolhandler and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.

At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:

“Our study has several limitations,” the authors concede. The survey data they used “assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.” Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance — and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.

Another caveat you won’t see on Grayson’s memorial to the dubious dead: The single-payer advocate-authors also conceded in their study limitations section that “earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7 percent and 11 percent of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample.”

To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as “uninsured” may not have been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status. But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data and voila: More than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance.

Next, the political doctors cooked up scary-specific death tolls for all 50 states (California — 5,302, Texas — 4,675). Newspapers dutifully cited the fear-mongering factoids. The single-payer lobbying group co-founded by Himmelstein and Woolhandler took it from there. Last month, the group set up its own memorial on the National Mall for the phantom 44,000 casualties of uninsurance.

Himmelstein (who was also the driving force behind another flawed study tying medical debt to personal bankruptcies) eschewed scientific nuance and caveats to take to the airwaves and declare starkly that an American “dies every 12 minutes” because of lack of insurance. And now Grayson has taken the monumentally dishonest concept online to solicit sob stories and put flesh on the weak bones of these dubious death numbers.

Where’s the White House health care “reality check” squad when you need it?

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

——————–

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Read More »

DAKOTA VOICE

RAPID CITY SD

YouTube Cooking the Books on Obama Worship Video?

By Bob Ellis on September 24th, 2009

If you’ve been around the internet for long, you know that Google is like most major media organizations today: liberal to the core.  They ignore patriotic holidays with their rotating search engine logos, conservative websites seem to have an unusually hard time getting good coverage in search rankings, and so on.

Maybe you also heard about the video of schoolchildren being led in a worshipful song about Barack Obama that was reminiscent of “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”  That video disappeared from YouTube earlier this morning…only to be replaced by someone who had the foresight to download a copy of it before it disappeared.

Now comes word from Selwyn Duke at RenewAmerica of some funny business with the viewership stats on this video at YouTube.

Duke said he checked the video himself and saw only 363 hits at 1:04 pm…while it had 2,279 comments.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Even touchy-feely liberal self-esteem-friendly math can’t seem to account for this.

So he tracked it further…

I tracked the video a bit myself. Now, remember that it had 363 hits at 1:04 p.m. Here’s what I found.

  • Approximately 1:25 p.m.: the video still supposedly had only 363 hits but had 2,500 comments.
  • 1:39 p.m.: still only 363 hits but 2,668 comments.
  • 2:16 p.m.: 363 hits but 3,018 comments.

You get the idea.

Yes, we do get the idea.

Is it just a glitch at YouTube? Or is it a clumsy but deliberate attempt by Leftist Google to keep the hit ranking of this video low so that it doesn’t make “Top Video” listings which would give it even more exposure?

Liberals feel a virtually irresistible compulsion to protect their Obamessiah from blasphemy or other negative comments, so it seems quite credible that Google doesn’t want the Obamessiah receiving any more negative exposure than he already is through this video.

It ain’t easy being a truth-teller in an age of liberal dominance…but it’s worth it all the same!

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Subscribe to this feedDiscuss on NewsvineAdd to Mixx!Email thisTwit This!CrossFeed ThisSphere: Related ContentTechnorati LinksSave to del.icio.usDigg This! (3 Diggs)Share on FacebookStumble It!1 comment on this itemAdd to Windows Live FavoritesSubmit to RedditGoogle Bookmark ThisFark ItAdd to Yahoo MyWeb2Buzz Up!

Related Posts

WXRGina Today 05:58 PM

HA! Last night when I saw this video linked off of Drudge, I noticed the number of hits on it was very low, though I can’t remember the actual number, it was only a few hundred. I was thinking this video is on DRUDGE, and this hit-count can’t be right! I thought the same thing then that you and Selwyn are saying. I knew this would “hit the fan” today, and I’m not surprised You Tube tried to bury it. These evil maniacs on the left are unbridled in their fervor to protect Obamination’s image. But, it ain’t workin’! The horse is out of the barn!

Massive Conservative D.C. Protest Buried and Dismissed, But Smaller Liberal Rallies Hailed
A conservative protest at the Capitol numbering in the tens of thousands was worth an unfavorable story on page 37. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Posted by: Clay Waters
9/14/2009 3:43:28 PM

There was a huge protest against Obama’s big-government plans at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, but one was hard-pressed to find evidence of it on the Times home page Sunday morning: A small headline tucked under the Political subhead.

The print edition wasn’t much more forthcoming. Although the Washington D.C. Fire Dept. estimated 60,000 to 70,000 people attended the 9/12 protest, and many estimates are higher, the Times made do with one medium-sized story buried on page A37 of the Sunday paper, “Thousands Attend Broad Protest of Government,” teasing it on the front page in a below-the-fold photo from the march. A much smaller Obama rally got better placement in the Times, and so had a previous ACORN-led left-wing protest numbering…40 people.

Reporter Jeff Zeleny painted protesters as “angry” and “profane” and that the rally contained “no shortage of vitriol,” as if there were never raised voices and obscene signage at left-wing anti-war rallies:

A sea of protesters filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall on Saturday in the largest rally against President Obama since he took office, a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government.

On a cloudy and cool day, the demonstrators came from all corners of the country, waving American flags and handwritten signs explaining the root of their frustrations. Their anger stretched well beyond the health care legislation moving through Congress, with shouts of support for gun rights, lower taxes and a smaller government.

But as they sang verse after verse of patriotic hymns like “God Bless America,” sharp words of profane and political criticism were aimed at Mr. Obama and Congress.

….

The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light. One sign called him the “parasite in chief.” Others likened him to Hitler. Several people held up preprinted signs saying, “Bury Obama Care with Kennedy,” a reference to the Massachusetts senator whose body passed by the Capitol two weeks earlier to be memorialized.

Other signs did not focus on Mr. Obama, but rather on the government at large, promoting gun rights, tallying the national deficit and deploring illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Check out this backhanded compliment:

Still, many demonstrators expressed their views without a hint of rage. They said the size of the crowd illustrated that their views were shared by a broader audience.

Zeleny found some unnamed “Republican officials” to fret over a backlash, and downplayed the significance of those who turned out:

Mr. DeMint and a few Republican legislators were the only party leaders on hand for the demonstration. Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians. And most of those who turned out were not likely to have been Obama voters anyway.

Did the Times ever suggest anti-war demonstrators “were not like to have been Bush voters anyway”?

While there was no shortage of vitriol among protesters, there was also an air of festivity. A band of protesters in colonial gear wended through the crowd, led by a bell ringer in a tricorn hat calling for revolution. A folk singer belting out a protest ballad on a guitar brought cheers.

Obama’s health-care speech on Saturday actually got slightly better placement. It landed on page A35 under a similar headline, “Thousands Rally in Minnesota Behind Obama’s Call for Health Care Overhaul,” although the attendance at the Target Center in Minneapolis was reliably estimated at around 15,000, making it at least four times smaller than the D.C. rally. Obama and his fans also got more positive coverage from reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

Thousands of roaring supporters turned out Saturday to rally behind President Obama’s call to overhaul the nation’s health care system, packing a basketball arena here as Mr. Obama warned that nearly half of all Americans under 65 could lose their insurance at some point during the next decade….On a day when demonstrators crammed onto the west lawn of the Capitol to protest what they regard as Mr. Obama’s brand of big government, including his health plan, the images of screaming, cheering Obama supporters here provided a welcome visual counterpoint for the White House. The White House estimated that 15,000 people attended the rally here; the applause was thunderous when the president bounded onto the stage, shirtsleeves rolled up, as he revived an old campaign rallying cry: “Are you fired up?”

In fact, the Times’ coverage of the huge anti-government rally in the nation’s capital was on the same level as the coverage of an ACORN-organized left-wing “bus tour” of homes of American International Group executives back in March, a piece of Astroturf so blatant even the Times admitted the media outnumbered the protesters. Yet while 40 left-wing protesters in Connecticut were worth a 724-word Times story back in March, an estimated 70,000 anti-Obama protesters in D.C. garnered a 932-word story on Saturday. A slight anomaly?

There was nothing on the Times’ “Caucus” blog from the actual march, although the blog did preview it Saturday morning with a pessimistic estimate of the crowd size (“as many as 30,000 demonstrators are expected”), in a post marked with suspicion of the protest’s origin and motives. That post also granted top billing to Obama’s speech.

Another telling contrast: The coverage of Saturday’s march (and the previous Tea Party protests) with the fawning coverage of the pro-illegal immigration protests of 2006, when amnesty for illegals was on the agenda. The Times didn’t find much “vitriol” at the massive rallies in support of illegal immigration. Here’s Robert McFadden in the April 10, 2006 Times, describing the largest of the nationwide rallies in Dallas:

The Dallas protesters were young and old. Some were families pushing baby strollers. Some walked with canes, others rolled along in wheelchairs. There were members of unions, churches, civil rights organizations and business groups, but many were strangers to one another. Some spoke passionately about their desire to be Americans, to vote and to hold a job without fea

The “True Identity” Of Van Jones

AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  September 10, 2009

The fact is that Jones was nailed by his own associations and statements.

Some people are wondering who is next after Van Jones. But the Van Jones story is not over. And we still don’t know who hired this “obscure” official, as some on the left are now trying to refer to him. Some of these controversies are currently being investigated by the new media. Blogger Trevor Loudon, who broke the story about Jones’ communist background, thinks White House official Valerie Jarrett needs to be seriously scrutinized. She appears to have had a family connection to Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis.

For the record, this “obscure” official technically worked at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), established within the Executive Office of the President. It “coordinates Federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.” Yet, he never went through a Senate confirmation hearing.

Meanwhile, representatives of various George Soros-funded organizations are coming to the defense of the identified communist.

John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, hailed Jones as an “exceptional and inspired leader who has fought to bring economic and environmental justice to communities across our country.”

Justin Ruben of MoveOn.org said Jones had “worked tirelessly to bring jobs and environmental progress to some of the poorest communities in our nation. His dedication and leadership are exactly what we need more of in Washington. And his resignation is a loss to this Administration.”

Josh Silver of the Free Press calls Jones “one of our most visionary and principled young leaders.”

Questions about Van Jones personally are not over, either. It’s been reported that Van Jones is not his real name. He is really Anthony Jones.

By the same token, Barack Obama was once Barry Soetoro. It’s not exactly clear when his name was changed, and when or if it was reflected on official documents.

Jones and Obama put a lot of importance in names. Jones named his son Cabral, after African Marxist Amilcar Cabral. So what happened with “Van?”

In an interview with Ariane Conrad, the person who largely wrote his best-selling book, Jones said, “Well my true identity, of course, is Anthony Jones from Jackson, Tenn. One might be able to use a search engine to figure that out.”

He may have been referring to the fact that his “true identity” had been previously revealed in a New Yorker article, “Greening the Ghetto,” by Elizabeth Kolbert. She noted, “Van Jones, born Anthony Jones, grew up in Jackson, Tennessee, a small town about ninety miles east of Memphis.” Kolbert explained that “After high school, Jones enrolled at the University of Tennessee at Martin. The first day of his freshman year, he decided that he needed a new identity, or, at least, a new name. Anthony Jones was dull. He chose Van because, he told me, ‘it has a little touch of nobility, but at the same time it’s not overboard.'” On another occasion, he said he picked “Van” because it sounded cool.

If he got a new name his freshman year of college, then why is he listed years later as “Anthony Jones” in the 2005 IRS form 990 filed by the organization he ran, the Ella Baker Center? The form is actually signed by “Anthony K. Van Jones” but printed as “Anthony K. ‘Van’ Jones,” with the name “Van” in quotation marks.

By 2006, it is back to “Anthony K. Jones” and by 2007 it has become “Anthony ‘Van’ Jones.”

In his statement, Podesta said that Jones, whatever his real name and true identity, had “chosen to resign because he believed he was serving as a distraction to the President’s agenda. I respect that decision.” Podesta was co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition project and employed Jones before he went to the White House CEQ.

But how could he have been a “distraction” when the major media had been ignoring the story? Jones was forced to resign, as the Marxist “progressives” at the Rag Blog website fully understand, because the investigation of Jones was getting too close for comfort for Obama and his inner circle. Sacking Jones was a way for the White House and the major media, just beginning to take an interest in the story, to move on.

It is apparent that Jones was thrown “under the bus” because too many of Obama’s close associates, including Jarrett, are implicated in his hiring. Jarrett had said that “we” had recruited Jones. Who is “we?”

Obama himself obviously approved the decision to bring him aboard. After all, he is the President. Jones and Obama were photographed together. What is the nature of their relationship?

Rep. Mike Pence was the only member of the House Republican Leadership to call for Jones to go. But the resignation has not resulted in any coherent explanation of how he was hired in the first place.

Just before Jones jumped ship, Senator Kit Bond of Missouri sent a letter asking for congressional hearings into the appointment. Among other things, he noted, “Last year, Mr. Jones in a radio interview stated his goals as a ‘complete revolution’ to ‘transform the whole society’ away from capitalism. These recent comments remove the credibility of his assertions that his past radical statements and actions such as the creation of the group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) rooted in Marxism and Leninism merely reflect youthful sentiments in the distant past.”

In fact, I am not aware of any claims by Jones that his involvement in STORM was just a matter of being too youthful. He never replied to my calls or emails and I was forced to file a series of Freedom of Information Act requests to try to get answers.

His Marxist rhetoric about a “complete revolution” was made to “Uprising Radio” in April of 2008 and brought to light by Breitbart TV. Going beyond “systems of exploitation and oppression is a process,” Jones said, that will take us beyond “eco-capitalism.”

He explained, “So the green economy will start off as a small sub-set and we’re going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

In other words, environmentalism and “green jobs” are the cover for implementing Marxism. Obviously, Jones has not changed. Only his methods have changed.

Bond sent his letter in his capacity as ranking member of the Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. But the chairman of this subcommittee, to whom Bond sent the letter, is socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a booster of Jones! So the chances of any hearings were always zero to begin with.

Are the Republicans serious about getting to the bottom of this scandal?

For his part, Sanders responded that Democrats should have stood by Jones. “To surrender to them is ridiculous, because they’re not going to stop. They’re just going to go after the next guy. We need to be standing up to them more vigorously and exposing their lies.”

He did not identify what “lies” he was talking about. The fact is that Jones was nailed by his own associations and statements. As he told Conrad, all you had to do was use a search engine.

Before going on to the “next guy,” it’s the job of the conservative media which took this story seriously to examine how Jones got his job. Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal blog is still on top of it. Glenn Beck should not let the Jones story drop now. And that means exposing those who are now defending Jones.

Speaking of Jones, Josh Silver of the Soros-funded Free Press says that “progressives” have a responsibility to “defend the public servants and innocent people who are being attacked…”

Their idea of “innocent” is someone who openly associated himself with an international movement that has taken the lives of more than 100 million truly innocent people. International communism is still the biggest “death panel” the world has ever known.

Which raises the question: why do modern “progressives” want to celebrate the work of a communist?

// // // //
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt=”Clicky” width=”1″ height=”1″ src=”http://static.getclicky.com/110761-db15.gif&#8221; mce_src=”http://static.getclicky.com/110761-db15.gif&#8221; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
//

&lt;img src=”http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-f3_BaGrSUyW5s.gif&#8221; mce_src=”http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-f3_BaGrSUyW5s.gif&#8221; style=”display: none;” border=”0″ height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=”Quantcast”/&gt;

SOCIALISTS. or both.  Either way they seem hell bent for leather to destroy this country.  If Senators (and Congresspersons) are elected to represent the best interests of the people who sent them to Congress.  So why do many of them follow the party line and  things that do not represent the people of their home state?


Sunstein headed toward confirmation
By: Alex Isenstadt
September 9, 2009 04:15 PM EST

Democrats succeeded Wednesday in pushing forward the nomination of Cass Sunstein, the controversial Harvard University law professor who has been tapped by President Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In a 63-35 vote Wednesday evening, the Senate voted to end the debate on Sunstein’s nomination, moving Sunstein one step closer to a full vote in the Senate.

Sunstein has been tapped for one of the more wonky jobs in the White House – reviewing the effectiveness of federal regulations. But his nomination has caught fire with conservatives, led by Fox News host Glenn Beck, who have highlighted some of his more liberal positions on animal rights and end of life care. Sunstein has been described by Republicans as one of the many Obama “czars,” but because he requires Senate confirmation, he doesn’t really fit the mold of a “czar” who wield enormous powers with little oversight.

Conservatives are particularly incensed over statements Sunstein has made advocating for greater regulation of hunting rights.

While Republicans will have little ability to stop Sunstein’s nomination, conservatives are feeling energized after their successful push for the resignation of White House green jobs adviser Van Jones, who stepped down from his post this weekend after it was revealed that he had dabbled with 9/11 conspiracy groups and had made inflammatory statements about Republicans.

The heated debate over Sunstein began on the Senate floor just hours before President Obama sets foot in the Capitol to deliver a nationally televised address on health care to Congress.

On his Twitter account Tuesday, Beck blasted Democrats for “rushing” Sunstein’s vote through the Senate.

“Dems likely to vote on Sunstein’s nomination TOMORROW; they are afraid of WatchDogs; every day increases their risk of losing this vote,” Beck wrote.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

The resignation of avowed communist Van Jones has plenty of people feeling that the future of the country is a bit safer. And it is an interesting “coincidence” that the attendees of the Cincinnati Tea Party demanded his resignation on Saturday, and then it was announced on Sunday.

The newest threat to the free market system and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to many conservatives is the appointment of Cass Sunstein as the regulatory czar. LaTimes.com describes him as “left of center, ” and Forbs.com has reported that he is as a, “progressive. ” Some of his academic writings apparently favor animal rights above human rights to the point of arguing the defense of animal rights over human rights in a court of law.

He’s not known for being a supporter of the second amendment, which is the right to keep and bear arms, and that disturbs ranchers who want to protect their cattle, those who are interested to have a gun on hand to protect their family, and those who are hunters.

Forbes.com has also stated that, Sunstein has “spent years delving into the obscure issues of regulatory law and behavioral economics,” which is a deep concern for conservatives who are supporters of the free market system, and the fact that he has, “embraced a controversial ‘senior death discount’ ” is of great concern to those who are pro life. Somehow, the words ‘senior death discount’ sounds an awful lot like the death panels in the healthcare bill.

Interestingly, TheHill.com reported on Wednesday that Representative Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), “called for President Obama’s ‘czars,’ or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their ‘authority and responsibilities’ in the executive branch.”

The question of the legitimacy of their authority is a good one. Especially since Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that, “…he (the President) shall nominate, and  by and with the Advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law” (emphasis added). In other words, the czars need to be confirmed by the Senate. And if the Senate doesn’t confirm them, they have no business standing in the positions to which they have been appointed.

To make matters even more interesting, there is a bill named HR 3226, also known as the “Czar Accountability Act of 2009.”  This particular bill states that, “appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries or expenses of any task force, council, or similar office which is established by or at the direction of the President and headed by an individual who has been inappropriately appointed to such position…without the advice and consent of the Senate.”  The bill was introduced in the House on July 15, 2009 by Rep. Jack Kingston and is being supported by many in the House. It would be in the best interest of “We the People” to demand that it be made into a law.

Similar Articles:

Tea Party attendees demand Van Jones resignation, and it happens
Socialism in America is unconstitutional
Congressman says Obama has potential to ‘make himself a dictator’
Senate’s fiscal irresponsibility is scaring the UN
Former communist turned Christian organizes interdenominational group in Prayer for Nation

Websites of possible interest:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3226 (HR 3226: Czar Accountability & Reform)
cincinnatiteaparty.org/
teaparty.org/


Posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago in OpinionPolitics

(Newser) – Barack Obama’s cabinet picks have elicited howls from the political left, but he won’t sell out his progressive supporters, E.J. Dionne, Jr. writes in The New Republic. First off, Obama never was a true economic leftie—that was John Edwards’ role. But like John F. Kennedy 45 years ago, Obama will probably push a progressive agenda through a team that conservatives can accept.

Lefties in Congress still like him, too. Obama knows that “the country faces more problems than at anytime since 1933,” says liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders. Obama is also entering the White House as most of the country is leaning left; even conservatives want to partly socialize Wall Street these days. “Reality has moved left, particularly over the last six months,” Dionne writes.

Source New Republic

· Time, CNN Top College Faves

Dec 1, 08 6:34 AM CST
Time, CNN Top College FavesCollege students took a break from beer pong to take stock of the world, a study of their favorite brands suggests. Time unseated Cosmopolitan as top magazine among the 1,000 students surveyed, while CNN.com bumped Perez Hilton off the list of top websites, Advertising Age reports. “World peace” became the fourth most desired wish for this election year—though, to be fair, the No. 6 most cherished was the ability to fly. More »

· Clinton at State Troubles Obamanauts

Nov 18, 08 9:55 AM CST
Clinton at State Troubles ObamanautsWhile a Hillary Clinton appointment as secretary of State has been greeted with enthusiasm worldwide, Barack Obama’s own team of believers is feeling some confusion and dissonance, reports Politico. “These guys didn’t put together a campaign in order to turn the government over to the Clintons,” says a Democrat close to Obama. “I can’t stand her,” said another—”but I think she’s a great choice.”
More »

· Has Obama Tipped Murdoch Left?

Nov 17, 08 9:35 AM CST
Has Obama Tipped Murdoch Left?Media watchers have been tracking the post-election New York Post with particular interest: Instead of being dyspeptic over the Democratic presidential win, Rupert Murdoch’s gleefully right-wing tabloid has treated Barack Obama to coverage ranging, as the New York Times puts it, “from warm and fuzzy to downright heroic.” Which fuels speculation, first raised by biographer Michael Wolff in a book excerpt in Vanity Fair, that the 77-year-old media magnate (and owner of Fox News) is veering leftward.
More »

· Gen X to Boomers: We Get It Now

Nov 9, 08 5:09 AM CST
We Get It NowSorry, boomers, for taking so long to drop the cynicism and eye-rolling, writes Heather Havrilesky in Salon. But to those who “became rational adults at the exact moment a reckless frat boy boomer became president,” your generation’s idealism and tales of ’60s radicalism fell flat, she spills. Barack Obama’s win changed that. Gen X’ers get it now, understanding “there’s no shame in throwing ourselves into this new future with full hearts, with tears in our eyes.” More »

· DC Anticipates 1.5M for Historic Inauguration

Nov 8, 08 6:35 AM CST
DC Anticipates 1.5M for Historic InaugurationHotel rooms will be as scarce as McCain-Palin T-shirts in Washington on Inauguration Day, the Wall Street Journal reports, as a record-breaking tide of Obama supporters—especially black Americans—makes a pilgrimage to witness the historic moment. More than 1.5 million people are expected to flood the city for the Jan. 20 event. Hotel rooms, even at rates above $1,000 a night, are booking three times faster than for the last inauguration.
More »

President-elect Barack Obama walks towards the podium during a news conference in Chicago, Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008.   (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

President-elect Barack Obama speaks at a news conference in Chicago, Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008.   (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

President-elect Barack Obama gestures during a news conference in Chicago, Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008.   (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)