House plans to resurrect law requiring ‘gay’ hires Fresh off health-care victory, Dems target Christian employers


House plans to resurrect law requiring ‘gay’ hires

Fresh off health-care victory, Dems target Christian employers

Posted: April 03, 2010
9:35 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.


Now that the health-care fight has proven House Democrats can muscle through legislation without a drop of bipartisan support, plans are underway to resurrect a bill that would make employers susceptible to lawsuits for refusing to hire “gay” or transsexual employees.

H.R. 3017, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, or ENDA, makes it unlawful for government agencies or businesses with more than 15 employees to refuse hire or promotion of anyone based on “gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

The bill does make exceptions for the U.S. military, religious organizations and some businesses with non-profit 501(c) designations, but makes no provisions for business owners’ consciences. A small construction company that wanted to maintain a Christian reputation, for example, could be sued if it refused to hire transvestites.

Openly homosexual members of the House, enthused by the health-care victory, are now looking to return from the congressional recess to begin work on ENDA.

Why do lawmakers like the idea of “rights” for sexual lifestyle choices. Get “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom” to find out!

”I am now confident that we will be getting a vote on ENDA,” bill sponsor Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told Boston’s Edge, ”The fact is, there was no chance of getting [Pelosi] to focus on this until health care was done. Health care is now done.”

He continued, “What people in our community need to do now is focus on lobbying members of the House so that we have the votes for it.”

The bill already has 198 cosponsors, not far from the number of votes needed to pass or the 219 that enabled the health-care legislation to squeak through.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., in fact, is confident the measure is primed to pass.

Baldwin told the Edge, ”I’ve heard encouragement that as soon as we return from this recess we will promptly take up ENDA. I suspect that’s the result of feeling some real confidence that the votes are in.”

When asked by Keen News Service, a national news outlet featuring reporting on lesbian, “gay,” bisexual and transsexual issues, if the measure has enough votes, Baldwin answered, “As someone who has actually counted the votes, I believe that there are.”

Baldwin added, “That’s one of the things the LGBT Equality Caucus does is to [focus] attention to making sure we can tell [House] leadership, with accuracy, what the vote would be if they bring the measures up to the floor.”

As WND reported when the bill was put forward three years ago, several groups voiced opposition to ENDA, which empowers the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce its provisions using some of the same powers granted by 1964’s Civil Rights Act.

“This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an individual’s changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender,” said Shari Rendall, director of legislation and public policy for Concerned Women for America. “Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith. “Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, ‘Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument,'” Rendall quoted.

“Over the years, the homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of co-opting the language of the genuine civil rights movement in their push for special rights,” explained former CWFA Policy Director Matt Barber, who now serves with Liberty Counsel. “This bill represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys.”

The bill does contain certain provisions and exceptions, including the following:

  • ENDA only affects companies with more than 15 employees
  • The U.S. military, as well as religious organizations and some 501(c) non-profit organizations are exempted
  • The law does not enforce preferential treatment or quotas, but specifically deals only with claims of disparate treatment
  • The law does not require businesses to open their women’s bathrooms or locker rooms to men calling themselves women, or men’s rooms to women, so long as “reasonable access to adequate facilities” is provided that is “not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity”
  • The law does not preclude “reasonable dress or grooming standards” at the workplace, provided the employer permits an employee undergoing a “gender transition” to adhere to the same dress as the gender to which the employee is “transitioning”
  • The law does not require employee benefits to be extended to unmarried partners.

As stated earlier, however, the bill holds no exemption for an employer’s faith or conscience, an omission that has drawn heavy criticism:

“This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors,” said Barber, “despite a sincerely held religious belief that those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic morality.

“ENDA would essentially force employers to check their First Amendment protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door,” he said.

H.R. 3017 was referred to four House committees in June of last year, but has been dormant since the House Education and Labor Committee held hearings on the bill last September.

Did you feel that hit in your wallet?


Did you feel that hit in your wallet?

Analysis says ‘Obamacare’ tab $2.5 trillion, not measly $940 billion in CBO guess

Posted: April 03, 2010
9:35 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

President Obama


A new analysis of “Obamacare,” as President Obama’s plan effectively nationalizing health care has been dubbed, concludes the law will hit American households for more than $17 billion a year with just one of its “disasters,” and the real overall cost likely will be $2.5 trillion, nearly triple the $940 billion estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, a single $17 billion-plus hit on American’s wallets will come from a tax increase on anyone with investment income, the result of dollars being invested in creating new products, services and jobs.

Heritage Foundation analysts Karen Campbell and Guinevere Nell found the tax, at Obama’s proposed rate of 2.9 percent, would reduce household disposable income by $17.3 billion a year, the analysis said.

The rate included in the new law is 3.8 percent, so “the actual effects are likely to be even more dramatic,” the report warned.

 The analysis examined the “Patients Protection and Affordability Act,” passed by the House March 21, the sidecar reconciliation bill that originated in the House.

Get the prescription for reclaiming America’s heritage of liberty, justice and morality – Joseph Farah’s “Taking America Back,” autographed only at the WND SuperStore.

The two, the analysis said, “will have major ramifications for every man, woman and child in the United States.”

“Between these two bills are countless provisions that grow federal spending, increase burdensome taxes, and put federal rules and regulations between Americans and control over their health care,” the report said.

Many such analyses are just now being published, since much of the law wasn’t available for review until shortly before the votes, and lawmakers themselves admitted they didn’t know all of its contents.

The foundation said there are 10 “major ways” it will injure Americans.

The analysis concluded the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office that the plan will cost $940 billion from 2010 to 2019 is just plain wrong.

“The authors of this legislation took advantage … in crafting the language of the bill, employing several budgetary gimmicks to make it appear cheaper,” the report said.

“These include omitting cuts to Medicare provider payment rates, known as the ‘doc fix,’ double-counting savings from Medicare and the CLASS Act, indexing benefits to general inflation rather than medical inflation, and delaying the expensive provisions of the bill.

“When these costs are accounted for, the new law is more likely to cost closer to $2.5 trillion,” the report said. “Such levels of spending will not only negate any projected deficit reduction but increase the federal deficit further than would prior law.”

The report also warned that efforts to address the cost of health care only address the symptoms of price hikes, and growth will be stymied by government fines for employees not covered by “adequate” policies.

Further, the government now not only will “define a required benefits package” but will “dictate the prices that insurers set.”

“The bill also opens the door for a de facto public option by creating government-sponsored national health plans to compete against private health plans in the health insurance exchanges the states are required to establish,” the report said.

It also extends Medicaid, a financially unsuccessful government plan, to “all Americans who fall below 133 percent of the federal poverty level.”

“According to CBO, of the 32 million newly insured in 2019, half will receive their coverage from Medicaid,” the report said.

“As it stands, Medicaid is a low-quality, poorly functioning program that fails to meet the needs of the Americans it serves. In most states, Medicaid beneficiaries have great difficulty finding a doctor who will treat them at the program’s low reimbursement rates and are more likely than the uninsured to rely on emergency rooms for care,” it said.

Other problems “Obamacare” presents include dumping huge new financial obligations on states that cannot balance their budgets – with costs estimated at almost $10 billion; failing to address the expected 2016 insolvency of Medicare; and creating an inequity among Americans for insurance programs actually available.

The Heritage analysis also concludes a major element of the law is unconstitutional.

“The new law requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. This represents an unprecedented extension of congressional power – never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase a good or service as stipulation of being a lawful citizen,” the analysis said.

The structure of fines also creates an incentive for employers to avoid hiring workers from low-income families, “hurting those who need jobs the most.”

“These disasters are only the beginning of the vast effects the president’s health acre overhaul will have on the U.S.,” the report warned in its conclusion.

Administration Not Interested In Old Friends

Administration Not Interested In Old Friends

April 2nd, 2010


Obama is abandoning our allies

What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama’s America?

If you’re a Brit, your head is spinning. It’s not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown — the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama’s sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the U.S. and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.

And then there was Hillary Clinton’s astonishing, nearly unreported (in the U.S.) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.

For those who know no history — or who believe it began on Jan. 20, 2009 — and therefore don’t know why this was an out-of-the-blue slap at Britain, here’s the back story:

Read More:

CHILL OUT, MR. PRESIDENT! Obama’s 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman’s claim of being ‘over-taxed’

Obama’s 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman’s claim of being ‘over-taxed’

by Anne E. Kornblut

CHARLOTTE – Even by President Obama’s loquacious standards, an answer he gave here on health care Friday was a doozy.

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package.

“We are over-taxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.

Obama started out feisty. “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,” the president said.

He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

Always fond of lists, Obama ticked off his approach to health care — twice. “Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance,” he said.

A few minutes later he got to the next point, which seemed awfully similar to the first. “Number two, you don’t know who might end up being in that situation,” he said, then carried on explaining further still.

“Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you’ve got health insurance you don’t always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you’re not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what’s happening is, is you’re going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it,” Obama continued, winding on with the answer.

Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned.

But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a “final point,” before starting again with another list — of three points.

“What we said is, number one, we’ll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage,” he said, before launching into the next two points, for a grand total of seven.

His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren’t being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided, and Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run.

It was not evident that he changed any minds at Friday’s event. The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.

Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice. “Boy, that was a long answer. I’m sorry,” he said, drawing nervous laughter that sounded somewhat like relief as he wrapped up.

But, he said: “I hope I answered your question.”

By Anne E. Kornblut  |  April 2, 2010; 3:01 PM ET

The American Revolution…REBOOTED!

The American Revolution…REBOOTED!

by Leigh Scott

If I had a dollar for every time some tool during the health care debate brought up how “we’re the only industrialized” nation in the world without socialized health care I’d have a lot of money. Why, I could even retire from my current job of poisoning the environment and taking advantage of the working man. I could, you know, relax.


Even the U.K., the drones blather, has government run health care. I guess they think we can identify better with the U.K. because they’re mostly white and speak English. I don’t know. I won’t waste any time trying to figure out the left’s thought process. Doing so would be as dangerous and pointless as trying to decipher the Necronomicon.

Invoking the U.K. as a model should, naturally, have the opposite effect on the American psyche. I hate to bring it up, but we kinda fought a war a couple hundred years ago to insure that we were NOT just like England. We already had the English life. We were right there and we rejected it.

Think of all the things we missed out on, only to aspire to end up in the same place. Our fish and chips are inferior. Guinness served over here is never quite as fresh. We don’t have tea time. I really like tea. We also ditched the cool accents. I mean seriously, I could have sounded like Ian McKellan or Sean Connery if it wasn’t for those clowns Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Thanks to the American Revolution we can’t claim Led Zepplin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Arctic Monkeys, The Smiths, Blur or the Spice Girls as our own. James Bond is not our brother. Neither is Dr. Who. On top of it, I would probably be a Lord or Earl or something. Damn it, Lord Leigh Scott of Wauwatosa sounds freaking awesome! Thanks a lot Thomas Paine.


The second half to the whole “we’re the only nation to not have” nonsense is that we are the “richest” nation. To that, I would like to affirm the obvious. We are the richest nation precisely because we DON’T have bloated, intrusive, nanny state government.

But Leigh, they say, it’s over. They passed it. Elections have consequences. Just deal with it.

I think that’s a dangerous idea. Accepting defeat when it is so far on the horizon for our great nation would be a huge mistake. I quote my almost countryman Winston Churchill when I say “Do not let spacious plans for a new world divert your energies from saving what is left of the old”.

No matter how you want to spin it, what happened at the end of March was indeed historic. Circumventing the “spirit” of the law to force a massive expansion of government has never happened before. Both the Social Security Acts of 1935 and 1965 passed with healthy bipartisan majorities. They weren’t “squeakers” voted late on a Sunday night after months of back room deals and shady pay-offs.

The process that just gave us the Obamacare more closely resembles the power grabs in Central America than it does anything Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton wasted their time writing about.

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention Lily Allen and Oasis. Great, we can claim Lady Gaga and Avril Lavigne. Wait, Avril Lavigne is Canadian? Damn it. Thanks again Alexander Hamilton.

Back to the point. The Left has made a critical error here. My Dad used to say “never make a threat unless you’re willing to follow through”. He was talking about fights on the playground, and later in business about suing people, but I think it’s true here. When you try to rig the system, ignore the will of the people, and rely on a favorable press to push a socialist agenda you better have the other toys that usually come in the evil dictator/commie/socialist toolkit. The American Left doesn’t.

Do you really think that any of this stuff is enforceable? What are they going to do when we all just stop paying taxes? What if we simply say “no thanks” to signing up with Blue Cross/Blue Shield? There aren’t enough jails. How long before the local police refuse to arrest people? The new bill calls for 15,000 new IRS agents, not 15 million.

Do you think that the 101st Airborne is going to accept an order to invade Arlington, TX?

The only way socialism overtakes America is if we accept it. If we simply mope around and complain about our taxes and the government like we always have. The only way this becomes the nightmare we all fear is if we let it.

And that is exactly what they expect us to do.

Unlike their heroes in Venezuela and Cuba, the left doesn’t have the muscle. I’ve gone head to head with union thugs. Not that scary. Sorry Nancy Pelosi, but I don’t see a Che Guevara in your future who can force social justice with the barrel of a gun.

It’s going to take more than Nancy Pelosi’s over-sized gavel, MSNBC, and presidential double talk to drive this country into the same recycle bin that the EU finds itself. It would take guns. And thanks to George Washington and Co., we have those too.

The Second American Revolution will be bloodless. It will amount to rank and file citizens sitting on their hands and on their wallets. Remember what our almost countrywoman Margaret Thatcher said; “the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”. Agreed Maggie. I say we cut it the purse strings early.

The ultimate genius of the Founding Fathers wasn’t simply the Constitution. We saw how malleable that piece of paper was Sunday night. No, their genius is the political philosophy behind it. It’s in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and Paine’s Common Sense. It’s now part of our DNA, our national identity. The government works for us, we don’t work for it. When the government forgets that and oversteps its bounds…time for a new government.

And that idea, my friends, it tougher to beat than a few parliamentary procedures or stubborn representatives.

So I take back what I said. Who wants to be an Earl anyway? The American Revolution insured that we have what no one else has: true liberty and freedom. Millions of our countrymen did not sacrifice their lives to allow us to slip into the same wretched trap that the rest of the world has. Our countrymen stared down legions of Redcoats, and we can’t stare down a botoxed illiterate like Nancy Pelosi? Our countrymen endured hand to hand combat with Nazi SS soldiers and we can’t put a moron like Paul Krugman in his place? Right now our brave brothers and sisters battle crazed Islamic militants who dream of death, and we can’t tell the goon at Starbucks with three earrings who lives in his parent’s basement, working on his “band”, where to stick it? Please.

Outside of our fondness for scotch and red meat, we are now nothing like our cousins in jolly old England. Thank God for that. Sure, the U.K. can claim Duran Duran, but we have Nirvana. And Prince. And The Doors. Plus, we have MGD and PBR. Guinness is good, but it’s a bit filling, like a milkshake. I’d like to insert a Daniel Day Lewis “milkshake” joke here, but I don’t think enough people will get it.

Anyway, I still kinda wish I had the cool accent.

Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

“They fear that the development and building of People’s (community) Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and control and turn an organization into a Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
 – Saul Alinsky responding to his critics, Reveille for Radicals; p. 199
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe.  It wasn’t hard then to see in Alinsky’s programs at home, elements of the people’s revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same “in your face” tactics being employed by Hitler’s Brownshirts.
What Alinsky’s critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people’s organizations, which all had two elements in common:  (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.
While most modern Americans remember well Hitler’s Holocaust and the Cold War waged by a solid U.S.S.R., many of these same Americans have swallowed some false history regarding the movements that spawned such widespread, horrendous results.  In what may be regarded as the most triumphant propaganda victory of our time, fascism has been scrubbed of all its Marxist roots, while communism has been scrubbed of  its millions of callous murders. 
This post-WWII propaganda coup undeniably set the stage for the early Alinsky critics’ most feared eventuality, that the massive organizations could be shrewdly adopted by a fascist demagogue, someone who could “seize leadership and control” and turn them into a “Frankenstein’s monster against democracy.”
But perhaps the most cunning propaganda feat in history has been undertaken for the past 8 years.  As Jonah Goldberg expertly expounds in his book, Liberal Fascism, American left-wing ideologues have managed to dissociate themselves from all the horrors of fascism with a “brilliant rhetorical maneuver.”  They’ve done it by “claiming that their opponents are the fascists.”
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously.  Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this diabolical tactic to deceive the people.  From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“…in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University…students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations – a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies.  The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address.  That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative – and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school.  He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’  And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
In what may eventually prove to be a devious rhetorical feat of monstrous proportions, while the left has been indulging and fostering the “Bush Is Hitler” meme, they may have just put a genuine ideological fascist heir in the White House.       
There is inherent danger in making scurrilous comparisons (as were perpetrated unceasingly against George W. Bush), but there seem to be some very worrisome signs in the rise of Barack Obama that we Americans would be foolish to ignore.
Obama, the Closer
As I put forth last year in “Obama, the Closer”, Barack Obama, did not start his movement; Alinsky did.    
Nor did Obama amass the organizations that propelled him.  As detailed by Heidi J. Swarts, in her book, Organizing Urban America, the movement begun by Saul Alinsky in the 1930s has morphed into thousands of secular and faith-based leftist political organizations.  ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has perhaps the highest public profile, is most reputed for radicalism, and is the organization with which Barack Obama was first aligned.  But ACORN is the mere tip of a veritable iceberg of Alinsky-styled community organizations that sweep across the entire United States and make up the backbone of faith-based progressive movements as well.
These euphemistically called “community” organizations have next to nothing to do with improving the communities and everything to do with politics, primarily strong-arming government money to advance their political aims.  Prior to Reagan’s election, these groups worked independently for the most part, each seeking to effect local change towards leftist ends.
But with Reagan’s victory, ACORN founding member Wade Rathke sent out a memo (published by Swarts; Organizing Urban America; p. 29) that would reverberate all the way to Barack Obama’s moment.  ACORN had been behaving as a sort of “Lone Ranger of the Left” for too long, wrote Rathke.  Ronald Reagan had formed a coalition among the middle-class that threatened to bring greater prosperity without left-wing Statists calling the shots.  Rathke put out the call to the ACORN troops to stop antagonizing those who would be allies, especially unions and church organizations, once shunned by ACORN as too placid for the real fight for power.  For the next 25 years, the community organization network built, proliferated and formed a solid, nation-wide base of political strength, purely according to Alinsky’s original vision, and all just waiting for the right candidate to tap into it and lead it.
When folks from all corners of America proclaimed, seemingly with one voice, Barack is the “One we’ve been waiting for,” they were speaking out of the vast Alinsky-originated network.    
Neither did Barack Obama invent the political “ideology of change,” nor design its carefully crafted propaganda.  While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans.  That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.
Barack Obama is merely the movement’s closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter.Hail Obama
Alinsky’s Ideology of Change:  The Third Way
Goldberg fastidiously notes the comparison between Alinsky’s “in your face” rules for radicals, studied and perfected by Barack Obama, and shows them to have profoundly fascist roots:
“…there’s no disputing that vast swaths of his (Alinsky’s) writings are indistinguishable from the fascist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s…His worldview is distinctly fascistic.  Life is defined by war, contests of power, the imposition of will.  Moreover, Alinsky shares with the fascists and pragmatists of yore a bedrock hostility to dogma.  All he believes in are the desired ends of the movement, which he regards as the source of life’s meaning…But what comes through most is his unbridled love of power.  Power is a good in its own right for Alinsky.  Ours ‘is a world not of angels but of angles,’ he proclaims in Rules for Radicals, ‘where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles.”
Saul Alinsky was the man who transformed politics in America into all-out war mode.  Alinsky’s tenth rule of the ethics of means:  “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”  All’s fair in love and war, and politics, to Alinsky, was war.
“A People’s (community) Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service’s ameliorative gesture.  It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people.  It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
A People’s Organization is dedicated to an eternal war.  A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.”
Saul Alinsky; Reveille for Radicals; p. 133     
Alinsky includes an entire section in Rules for Radicals on “The Ideology of Change.”  The watchword of the Obama campaign was “change.”  Just as Hitler mobilized the masses with a calculatingly undefined demand for “change,” so did Alinsky disciple, Barack Obama.
“Everything must be different!” or “Alles muss anders sein!,” Hitler’s own campaign slogan, morphed into “Unite for Change,” and the Obama transition team’s  Even the idea of a vast “movement” was borrowed from Hitler.  As Goldberg states, Hitler used the phrase, “the Movement,” more than 200 times in Mein Kampf.            
The word ‘movement’ itself is instructive.  Movement, unlike progress, doesn’t imply a fixed destination.  Rather, it takes it as a given that any change is better.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 176)
Perhaps the most intoxicating allure to the fascist demagogue and his movement for undefined change is its misleadingly conciliatory flavor.  Barack Obama continually, throughout his campaign and even now, portrays himself as the Third Way between the cantankerous factions that have polarized America for the past 80 years, since liberal fascism took root as the Progressive Movement. 
Obama claimed that Bush was too much the ideologue, that his policies were driven by the Christian right, involved “false choices” between all-out war on the one hand and diplomacy on the other, between the welfare state and cold-hearted, do-nothing conservatism, between absolute sovereignty and cowardly submission to the global community, between doing all and doing nothing.  And if any of this gibberish were a true reflection of our political disagreements, Obama would be somewhat correct.  But as any sentient person knows, this radical presentation of Obama’s is absolutely false.  That gets lost, though, in the leader’s conciliatory tone.
What must not get lost, however, is the very real fact that this Third Way movement for change is as fascist as anything we have ever seen in the USA.  As Alinsky described his own “Ideology of Change,” the lure is in the claim that the leader has no ideology that would confine his outlook to hard choices between what is moral or immoral, that there are no boundaries set by either religion or politics, that everything can change and the only thing that matters is one’s end intention to do something good.
As Hitler, before Alinsky, proclaimed, “Our program is to govern,” not delve into theory and dogma.  This is in itself very appealing, especially to an electorate sick of the contentiousness of the past decade.  This undefined “ideology of change” for the sake of change, for some action that will break through the roadblocks of polarization, has tremendous allure.
But Goldberg bursts that bubble:
The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical.  Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking.  But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian.  Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs.  The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices -‘I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’  The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.  Fascist movements are implicitly utopian because they – like communist and heretical Christian movements — assume that with just the right arrangement of policies, all contradictions can be rectified. 
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 130)
Of course, thinking people — when they are indeed thinking — know this is an utterly false promise.  Life will never be made perfect because all human beings are imperfect.
Unity, the Diabolical Lure
What of this longed-for unity then?  Barack Obama proclaimed he was leading a movement of people “united for change.”   What is the appeal of unity? 
The modern liberal fascist seeks that state between mother and child which exists early on before the child seeks his own independence, before mother must set herself at odds with him.  It is the perfectly secure state of childhood where all is lovely and peaceful and nurturing, but cannot continue indefinitely if the child is to be prepared to face a world of difficulty and hard choices.  Nevertheless, the yearning continues.  It is this primordial yearning which sets itself in the crosshairs of the fascist demagogue.
But in adult life, this type of unity is anything but desirable, anything but virtuous.  As Goldberg states, however, “elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.”
The allure of this mystical unity is so great that its demand to sacrifice reason and thought on the false altar of infantile security is seemingly lost to many.  But as Goldberg also reminds us, “unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink.”
Rampaging mobs are unified.  The Mafia is unified.  Marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified.  Meanwhile, civilized people have disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments.  Classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.
Liberalism rejected the idea that unity is more valuable than individuality.  For fascists and other leftists, meaning and authenticity are found in collective enterprises – of class, nation, or race – and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate.
(Goldberg; Liberal Fascism; p. 172)
Just as the healthy relationship between parent and developing child demands friction, so does the healthy relationship between truly liberal citizens.  Unity is the siren song of tyranny, not the call to genuine progress.
Fascism:  The Two Birds with One Stone Approach
I think of Obama’s liberal fascism as a cancer that attempts to kill the two birds of American exceptionalism with one stone.  It is a deviously appealing Third Way that in the end, if allowed to triumph completely, kills both individual liberty and Judeo/Christian religion with its single stone.
And, indeed this was the precise goal of Adolph Hitler.  Unlike the outspoken hatred of private property and religion espoused by communists under Lenin and Stalin, Hitler preferred the more moderate-seeming incremental takeover of private enterprise in the interest of the “common good,” and the slow-death of Judeo/Christian religion by chipping away at it and replacing the people’s dependence upon God gradually with reliance on the state (Hitler).
[Note:  Hitler’s Holocaust was based on the Progressive Eugenics principles set forth by Social Darwinist scientists and social engineers of the 1920s, widely accepted both in Europe and in the United States.  Religion was not at the core of the Holocaust; race was.  However, Hitler’s other chief aim was to destroy the Judeo/Christian religions, which he believed had ruined the Germanic race’s world predominance.]
Of course, as the German people were duped into giving Hitler totalitarian powers to work his magic “change,” he took off the kid gloves and accelerated the program.
In the end, however slow the process, however seemingly benign the growth of the state may seem, liberal fascism has the same result of all tyrannies before it:  hell on earth for most and a self-indulgent feast for the Statists in power.
As Barack Obama speaks, thinking Americans ought to hear the echoes of past fascist demagogues and remember.  Remember.
When Barack Obama promises “collective redemption” through his profligate spending programs and vast overtures to a new world order built on love for our fellow man, we ought to shudder not swoon. 
We ought to remember that healthy global relationships are built upon respect, not all-encompassing love, and that redemption for one’s soul is a commodity the state is not empowered to offer.
As Pope Benedict XVI has so presciently warned:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much.  Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Be not fooled, America.  The movement, which appears most benign is instead the most malignant growth ever seen on our soil.  It’s a cancer that will kill, and however slowly it grows or however nice it may look on the surface, doesn’t change a thing.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at 

Cause of Death “Uninsured”?

April 02, 2010

Cause of Death “Uninsured”?As Jim Byrd says, “I would challenge anyone to produce a death certificate stating that the cause of death was “uninsured.” This health care bill is not about health insurance or health care, as neither were improved”

A Harvard study revealed that 45,000 Americans die each year because they do Government_Crushing_You not have health insurance. “Having no health insurance means an early death to almost 45,000 people in the United States annually – almost two-and-a-half times the number previously estimated,” according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that 2.4 million people die each year in the United States. Medicare insures 75% of those who die. Is Medicare responsible for killing 1.8 million Americans each year? Using the same logic employed by the Democrats that not having health insurance is a cause of death would dictate that Medicare is responsible for 75% of all deaths each year. This would make Medicare the number one killer in the United States.

Dick Durbin has the number of people dying from no health insurance at 25,000 per year. His math: “Today, 70 Americans will die for lack of health insurance, 70. And when the Republicans tell us, ‘Go slow, start over, take your time,’ we’ve got to add it up. It’s 70 a day. How much time can we take?”

Harry Reid has the number at 105,000 per year. His math: “Two Americans die every ten minutes because they do not have health insurance.”

I would challenge anyone to produce a death certificate stating that the cause of death was “uninsured.”  [snip]

Assuming logic and commonsense are disregarded so the Harvard study that professes having no health insurance means an early death to almost 45,000 people is an absolute, then the Democratic Party plans to eradicate 45,000 Americans per year until the year 2019. These 45,000 unfortunate victims dying each year from lack of health insurance are now going to be rescued by the Democrats with the passage of the health care bill, but with a minor caveat: they will need to hang-on for another 4 to 9 years before the omnipresent panacea of government insurance can rescue them from the clutches of the Grim Reaper. Not medical science, not world-class doctors, not state of the art hospitals, but this behemothic gaggle of imbeciles, the current United States federal government, is going to save these lives by mandating the purchasing of health insurance for coverage in a medical industry, that when the Democrats are finished correcting, physicians will be letting blood, pulling teeth, and giving haircuts in their short robes. But as an obvious altruism by the Democrats, the Medicare cuts in the bill will decimate that little niche so badly that the elderly will be forced from the program, thus saving those abandoned by their government from a 75% chance of death by Medicare.  (continue reading at Canada Free Press)

Side Effects of Obamacare: Laws No Longer Mean What They Say

Side Effects: Laws No Longer Mean What They Say

Posted By Kathryn Nix On April 1, 2010 @ 4:00 pm In Health Care | 20 Comments


Major flaws in the gargantuan Obamacare bill started to emerge almost immediately after it was signed into law.  One of the most embarrassing:  failure to ensure immediate coverage for kids with pre-existing conditions—something Obamacare supporters had constantly promised was part of the bill.

Looking to provide cover for those who wrote the bill, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius fired off a warning letter [2] to insurers. “Health insurance is designed to prevent any child from being denied coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition,” she scolded.  As though it was their mistake!

The pols got in the act too.  According to the Associated Press [2], “House leaders later issued a statement saying their intent in writing the legislation was to provide full protection.”  Well all right, then!

Luckily, in this case, the insurance industry is declining to take advantage of politicians’ sloppiness.  The AP reports [2] that Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, wrote back to Sebelius, saying the industry will “fully comply” with the HHS regulations on this matter, once they are written.

But is this anyway to run a country?  To have lawmakers and regulators coerce the private sector into doing what they simply declare to be their “intent,” rather than what is actually written in the law?  Legislation is supposed to be scrubbed of shortcomings such as this before it’s brought to the floor for a vote.

Expect more episodes like this in the months to come.  Washington loves flexing new-found muscle—in this case, the heavy hand of lawmakers and regulators browbeating others for failure to do what they want ‘em to do, but failed to put into law.

Episodes like this reveal the merits of taking a considered, incremental approach to health care reform.  To learn more about the right way to successful health care reform, click here [3].

Obama Is Now Showing His True Colors as a Radical

Obama Is Now Showing His True Colors as a Radical

Posted By Leon de Winter On April 2, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Column 2, Culture, Iran, Israel, Media, US News | 122 Comments

Barack Obama’s presidency marks a revolutionary change in America’s relations with the Middle East. This is not an accident, and it is not the consequence of reckless Israeli behavior.

In his two autobiographical books, Obama appears as a postmodern, left-of-center intellectual. The books were taken in the media at face value, and although they contain some insights into his progressive agenda, the depth of Obama’s connections to neo-Marxist ideologues was only touched upon in passing. The media left it at that, and when he was campaigning, the mainstream media refused to research these ideological alliances.

As a community organizer, Barack Obama was heavily influenced by the theories of Saul Alinsky [1], who was a non-partisan neo-Marxist focused on the non-violent transformation of civil society. In Germany, a similar model was called der Marsch durch die Institutionen — “the long journey through the institutions.”

Alinsky’s most important work is Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, a year before his death. Its central theme is the question of how to organize individuals into revolutionary masses and gain control of society. The opening lines of Rules for Radicals are:

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

Barack Obama is the student Alinsky could only have dreamed of tutoring.

Smoothly, Obama executed Alinsky’s strategy: look and sound like a moderate member of civil society, but at the same time prepare silently for a structural transformation. Obama knew he should run as an African-American candidate, as a law professor, as a respectable left-of-center member of the mainstream establishment, but essentially he was an Alinsky candidate all the way.

In October 2008, it was revealed [2] that the Los Angeles Times had a video which seemed to show Barack Obama at an event with the radical anti-Israel Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. But the newspaper refused to make the video’s content public, supposedly to protect its source. Think about this for a moment. It is doubtful whether the newspaper would have made the same defense if the presidential candidate had been a conservative. The protection of the individual source would have been pushed aside for the argument that the public had to be informed of a matter of urgent national interest.

In this case, candidate Obama had to be protected. Why? If Obama had simply expressed himself neutrally or the event was just a friend’s party for Rashid Khalidi, the Times would have happily distributed the video. Almost certainly, the explanation for the secrecy with which the Times has handled the tape can only lie in its sensitive content. Otherwise, the Times’ careful behavior is nothing but inexplicable. What could that video contain? There is no need to guess. It can only be anti-Israel remarks made by Obama at a party of a close, radical, Palestinian friend.

Rashid Khalidi is one of the central figures in America’s left-wing, anti-Israel academy. The Khalidis and the Obamas shared the same circle of radical intellectual friends in Chicago, among whom the former terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were prominent members. Barack and Rashid  had a solid friendship, being employed as professors at the University of Chicago together. They regularly met for meals with wives and kids.

But when Obama started running for president, he had to cut off or even deny his life as an Alinsky radical (he pretended to know Ayers only in passing as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood [3]“), and the media cooperated, ignoring Obama’s life as an ideologue and radical professor. The possibility that an African-American could become president was more important than collecting information about his politics, his beliefs, his ideas, his connections, and his friendships. Alinsky couldn’t have planned it better.

Not only is the the Los Angeles Times video still under lock and key at the newspaper, we also have no clue what Obama has written in his student papers, as they are also locked away.

We do know what his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, told him during the twenty years that the Obamas were members of Wright’s congregation. Wright married Barack and Michele and baptized their children. Wright is a screaming anti-American and anti-Semitic racist, a successful exploiter of “black rage” who earned a small fortune with his radical diatribes.

Why would a decent mainstream law professor grace this extremely provocative and anti-Semitic preacher with his presence? How can you ally yourself for twenty years with such a man and get away with it? Well, Obama and his campaign advisors showed their brilliance; in order to silence the threat of his former pastor — an uncontrolled man who had to be neutralized –  Obama gave his “race speech [4]” in March 2008. In it, he turned the threat of his alliance to Wright into an accentuation of his candidacy as an African-American. And the media complied.

Harry Reid was right: “He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,” Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write in Game Change.

The true character of the candidate that the American public elected was hidden from scrutiny by smooth-marketing geniuses like David Axelrod, who was able to create a ring of safety around Obama based on the deadly weapon the Obama team could point at his critics: the race card. This is a weapon that, at the moment, is widely used.

During the campaign, Obama’s life in Chicago as a member of the radical left was left mainly untouched by the American media. America desperately needed a bipartisan black president. Instead, it elected a neo-socialist Alinskyite.

Obama masterfully hid his true colors when running for office, but they are slowly reappearing in his policies. He is soft on leftist dictators, soft on Islamic tyrannies, and radically negative toward big companies, which he openly denounces. He recently verbally trashed the complete health insurance industry in America in a violent speech worthy of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Obama never shed his radical convictions when he entered the White House, but he knows he has to be careful and pretend he is a moderate left-of-center politician, totally at ease with the system of capitalistic civil society. But he, as an historic figure, now can transform the economic and social fabric of the leading nation on earth from within.

To understand Obama’s ideas about Israel and the Palestinians, one should understand the ideas of his close friend Rashid Khalidi. According to Khalidi, Israel is “a state that exists today at the expense of the Palestinians.” Israel “fails to meet the most important requirement: justice.” In an interview in 2000, when he and Obama could still meet freely and  exchange ideas about racism, colonialism, and imperialism over dinner, Khalidi said that Israel was a “racist” state, a state that was “basically an apartheid system in creation.”

Obama is getting the assistance of left-wing Jews, for whom the Jewish state is a shameful reminder of their tribal ghetto-ancestry, of dancing Chassidim, and of outdated religious-colonialist ideas over promised lands that cause innocent Arab Muslims to suffer and to blow themselves up.

This is the present situation. It doesn’t make sense to hide the truth. The president of the United States despises Israel. Obama has constructed one of history’s most impressive political careers while hiding his true convictions. But these are now beginning to show in his denial of Palestinian brutality, Iranian apocalyptic ambitions, Chinese devastation of Tibet, the liberating and emancipating qualities of the free market, and Israel’s right to defend itself.

If Obama is Israel’s best friend, it is time for the Jewish state to look for others.

Sarah Palin: Real American Stories


Sarah Palin: Real American Stories

Real American Stories
 Thu at 11:17am
America is exceptional! It’s not her politicians that make her so; it’s her everyday people and the values Americans hold so dear. During this special week let’s take time to honor some exceptional citizens who may have felt ordinary, but by acting on opportunities in front of them, they’ve accomplished some extraordinary things and have made this world a better place. “Real American Stories” highlights some good people who help lift America’s spirit. Enjoy their stories as they inspire all of us to look beyond self and strive to contribute to this great, blessed country.

I will be guest hosting “Real American Stories” tonight on Fox News Channel. The show airs at 10pm EDT, 9pm Central, 8pm Mountain, 7pm Pacific, and 6pm Alaska time.

– Sarah Palin