I do not like this Uncle Sam,

I do not like this Uncle Sam,

I do not like his health care scam.

I do not like these dirty crooks,or how they lie and cook the books.

I do not like when Congress steals,

I do not like their secret deals.

I do not like this speaker Nan ,

I do not like this ‘YES, WE CAN’.
I do not like this spending spree—

I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free.

I do not like your smug replies,

when I complain about your lies.

I do not like this change and hope.

I do not like it. nope, nope, nope!

Go green – recycle Congress in 2012!

Stop the Democrats’Plan for Electoral Chaos

Jan Ting,FloydReports.com

During the 2000 presidential election,Al Gore won the popular vote but George
W. Bush won the presidency by winning the majority of votes in the Electoral
College. Since then,a predictable but misguided
effort has been underway to try to make the popular vote determinative of
presidential elections
,instead of relying on the Electoral College as
provided in the Constitution and as traditionally counted.

Recognizing that such a proposal could never command the support of
three-quarters of the states required for a constitutional amendment,proponents
have instead proposed an interstate compact by which states commanding a
majority of votes in the Electoral College agree to cast all their votes for the
winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election. States would
legally bind themselves to cast their electoral votes for the national popular
vote winner regardless of the actual vote in that state. And by mutual
agreement,the legislation in each state would become effective as soon as states
commanding a majority of the electoral votes enact the same legislation.

The flaw in the proposal is the possibility of a close result in the national
popular vote. Under the current system,a close vote in the Electoral College
could trigger a recount and protracted litigation in a single state,as we
experienced in Florida in 2000,or at worst in a couple of states where the close
popular vote could affect the electoral votes.

But under the national popular vote proposal,a close national vote could
result in recounts and protracted litigation in all 50 states and in the
District of Columbia,because….

Read
more
.

Biden At AFL-CIO Rally: “You Are The Only Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates”

Biden At AFL-CIO Rally: “You Are The Only
Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates” (Video)

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/09/biden-at-afl-cio-rally-you-are-only.html

The
opposition is called “son of a bitches” at one Labor rally and “barbarians” at
another rally. Here’s an angry Joe Biden at the AFL-CIO rally in Cincinnati just
a short time ago

The Hate Speech Inquisition

Lead Story

The Hate Speech Inquisition

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 19, 2011 08:36 AM


Tucson massacre + Red Queen politics = Hate Speech Inquisition.

I noticed a new game the blamestream media is playing this week. It’s the same game they played with Sarah Palin last week: Blame the victim. After a slew of Democrat leaders issued open threats against talk radio, conservative radio hosts rose up to defend themselves. And now, the BSM is deriding those who work in talk radio for inserting themselves into the Tucson massacre story and for having a “persecution complex.”  No, really.

This week’s column also spotlights the repeated attempts by Red Queen open-borders radicals to insert themselves into the Tucson shooting rampage that had no more to do with illegal immigration than it did with talk radio.

On a related note: The worst sheriff in America is still mugging for the cameras.

***

The Hate Speech Inquisition
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

There isn’t a shred of evidence that deranged Tucson massacre suspect Jared Loughner ever listened to talk radio or cared about illegal immigration. Indeed, after 300 exhaustive interviews, the feds “remain stumped” about his motives, according to Tuesday’s Washington Post. But that hasn’t stopped a coalition of power-grabbing politicians, progressive activists and open-borders lobbyists from plying their quack cure for the American body politic: government-sponsored speech suppression.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting rampage, Democratic leaders mused openly about reintroducing the Orwellian “Fairness Doctrine” – a legislative sledgehammer targeting conservative viewpoints on public airwaves. New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter assailed the Federal Communications Commission for failing to police broadcast content and vowed to “look into” more aggressive language monitoring. Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey blamed “incendiary rhetoric” for triggering “unstable individuals to take violent action.” In his own manifesto calling for resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, Democratic Rep. James Clyburn pressed public officials to “rethink parameters on free speech.”

This week’s fashionable new media meme is to deride talk radio hosts for taking these speech-squelching threats seriously. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman sneered at the “persecution complex” of conservative broadcasters who reacted to Slaughter and company. Politico’s Keach Hagey dismissed concerns about the Democrats’ chilling campaign against right-leaning media outlets and knocked conservative talkers’ “defensive posture.” (Sound familiar? This is the same tactic they used against Sarah Palin and all those on the right falsely accused of being accessories to the Tucson massacre: Attack ‘em. Attack ‘em for responding. Accuse the smear victims of playing the victim card. Repeat.)

Make no mistake: The Hate Speech Inquisition is real. And it’s being fought on all fronts. Last week, using the non-radio-inspired Tucson massacre as fuel, the National Hispanic Media Coalition called on the FCC to gather evidence for the left’s preconceived conclusion that conservative talk radio “hate speech” causes violence. It’s Red Queen science — sentence first, research validation later.

The head of the NHMC is Alex Nogales, who has filed more than 50 petitions to deny broadcast licenses and has led anti-corporate crusades to “force” broadcast stations across the country “to hire Latino reporters and anchors” and adopt “diversity initiatives.” Grabbing the Tucson shooting limelight, Nogales told Broadcasting and Cable magazine last week:

“We can’t stand there with our arms crossed and make like there isn’t a reason why this is happening. … We started this dialog(ue) in the last immigration debate four years ago. We could see that it was just out of control. It started with just an issue of immigration, then every pundit on radio and TV who wanted an audience started talking about it and started using the worst of language, and now it has spilled out into mainstream.”

Loughner’s wild Internet rants and creepy campus meltdowns clearly demonstrate that crazy doesn’t need a motive. But progressive censors need their bogeymen, and Nogales isn’t about to give them up for reality’s sake. The NHMC first filed a petition in October 2009 demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration. The petition followed on National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia’s call for media outlets to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

Nogales’ group is part of a larger “media justice” coalition dedicated to curtailing and redistributing conservatives’ political speech under the guise of diversity and decency. As left-wing philanthropists at the Media Justice Fund put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” But, hey, we better just ignore these communications control freaks lest we be accused of suffering a “persecution complex.”

The Praetorian Guards of civility keep telling us that “words matter.” Threats should be taken seriously, they insist. Except, of course, when those words and threats are uttered by those hell-bent on regulating their opponents’ discourse out of existence.

Tucson Overreaction: Putting Wimpiness In The Crosshairs

Tucson Overreaction: Putting Wimpiness In The
Crosshairs

January 14th, 2011

Danny Tyree, FloydReports.com

What a party that must have been! I’m speaking of the time that Lee Harvey
Oswald, John Wilkes Booth and James Earl Ray hopped into their Hot Tub Time
Machine and journeyed to 2011 to listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and get
brainwashed into entering the assassination game.
That scenario is not so far-fetched for those who are rushing to declare the
recent Tucson shooting rampage the fault of (take your pick) the Tea Party,
conservative talk radio, FOX News, or negative campaign ads. Suddenly “civility”
groupies are bemoaning “vitriolic rhetoric,” “hate,” “anger,” “bitterness,”
“rancor,” “extreme ideologies” and “verbal savagery.”
I agree that politicians, commentators and voters should be ashamed of
rumor-mongering, deliberate distortions of the truth, and knee-jerk auto-pilot
opposition to everything the other party proposes – but beyond that, we do a
disservice to our forefathers if we insist on playing the child-pacifying game
“Tiptoe, Tiptoe, Quiet As A Mouse” around so-called hot button issues.
Is political discourse in 2011 something unique in history? Returning Vietnam
War veterans were taunted as “baby killers.” An infamous 1964 campaign
commercial strongly implied that challenger Barry Goldwater would plunge us into
nuclear war. The Copperheads thought Abe Lincoln a despicable tyrant. One of
Thomas Jefferson’s supporters branded John Adams “a hideously hermaphroditic
character.”
Since 1776 this republic has….
Read
more
.

Morning Bell: “We’ve Come to Take Our Government Back”

Morning Bell: “We’ve Come to Take Our Government Back”

Posted By Michael Franc On May 19, 2010 @ 8:57 am In Ongoing Priorities | No Comments

[1]

Last month the Pew Research Center reported [2] that only 22% of Americans trusted the government to do the right thing always or most of the time. And that was the good news for incumbents:

Favorable ratings for both major parties, as well as for Congress, have reached record lows while opposition to congressional incumbents, already approaching an all-time high, continues to climb.

Significantly, a majority of Americans (52%) see the members of Congress themselves as the source of their dissatisfaction. Only 38% attribute their frustration to “a broken political system.”

Last night’s election results in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas seem to bear that out:

  • In Kentucky, political newcomer Rand Paul trounced Secretary of State Trey Grayson. As a proxy for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Grayson had inadvertently become the Washington insider in the race despite never having been elected to federal office. And, as the son of libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, the younger Paul was also a proxy of sorts. He came to embody the desire of voters in the Bluegrass State to send the ultimate outsider to Washington. His mission? Shrink the federal behemoth, balance the budget and reduce the federal debt while exhibiting some long overdue humility from our public servants.
  • In Pennsylvania, given the opportunity to oust a five-term incumbent Senator with plenty of inside-the-Beltway clout, Democratic primary voters cheerfully complied. They dumped Arlen Specter in favor of a relative newcomer, second-term Rep. Joe Sestak. In his victory speech, Sestak struck a defiant populist tone, characterizing his victory as a “win for the people” over “the establishment, over the status quo, even over Washington, D.C.”
  • In Arkansas, Democratic primary challengers from both the right and left squeezed incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln into a run-off against the state’s leftist Lt. Governor, Bill Halter. While Halter galvanized Arkansas’ Democratic base on the political left, businessman D. C. Morrison ran to Lincoln’s right as a conservative, Reagan-loving Democrat. Morrison cast his vote for Ron Paul in 2008 and spent considerable time railing against Obamacare, bailouts, the stimulus bill and mounting government debt, Morrison pulled a not insignificant 13% of the Democratic vote.

Seniority on the most powerful congressional committees and endorsements from Washington’s most powerful insiders, including President Obama, were liabilities last night.

So, what explains the outcome in the special House election to replace recently deceased Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)? An aide to Murtha, Mark Critz, handily defeated Republican businessman Tim Burns in a contest many pundits felt would serve as an early barometer of Republican prospects in November. As one political consultant noted last night: “I think us pundits in Washington are going to have to revise our thinking about whether this is a wave election year for Republicans.”

Ron Brownstein, the brainy political expert at National Journal, argues that to regain control of the House, Republicans must prevail in seats such as this one. Districts where there is little racial diversity (i.e., where whites comprise 90% or more of the electorate) and few attended college. Murtha’s seat, Pennsylvania-12, fits this profile to a tee.

Get ready for an outpouring of new analyses spouting a new conventional wisdom, one that dismisses the power of the Tea Party movement, and questions whether 2010 will be a watershed election after all.

But, if Critz’s victory is to serve as some sort of a blueprint for Democrats, it will require some serious triangulation. Critz, after all, campaigned (rhetorically, at least) to the right of most Washington Democrats. “I opposed the health care bill,” he insisted during a debate, and then added for good measure that “I’m pro-life and pro-gun. That’s not liberal.” As with the outcomes in those Senate primaries, Washington’s Democratic establishment cannot draw much solace from this development.

There is an overriding lesson for conservatives from last night’s results as well.

Many are prematurely confident that November will be one of those rare “wave” elections that upend the Washington power structure and realign our politics. Maybe. But the early warning signs have been there for everyone to see for awhile now, at least since Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) historic election in January. Savvy liberal political strategists and worried Democratic primary voters, moreover, have had ample time to adapt to the demands of an angry and increasingly conservative electorate. Few Democrats in swing or conservative districts will run as Pelosi or Obama liberals. Instead, expect their rhetoric to morph the populism of Joe Sestak into the conservatism of Mark Critz. As Rand Paul said [3] last night:

I have a message, a message from the Tea Party. A message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We’ve come to take our government back.

Quick Hits:

JUDICIAL WATCH ANNOUNCES LIST OF WASHINGTON ‘S “TEN MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS” FOR 2009.

JUDICIAL WATCH ANNOUNCES LIST OF WASHINGTON ‘S “TEN MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS” FOR 2009.

GUESS WHO MADE THE LIST?

THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT PLEASED.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/dec/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2009

Boehner: ‘At least 100 seats’ are in play…

Boehner: GOP Will Repeal Health Care Law

by NPR Staff

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Enlarge Haraz N. Ghanbari/APHouse Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) says his party will enact common-sense steps to lower the cost of health care if his party wins the majority in November’s midterm election.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Haraz N. Ghanbari/APHouse Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) says his party will enact common-sense steps to lower the cost of health care if his party wins the majority in November’s midterm election.

text size A A A

April 30, 2010

House Republican Leader John Boehner has said that his party will repeal the new health care law if the GOP gains a congressional majority in November.

“I think that we need to repeal the health care law and replace it with common-sense steps that will lower the cost of health insurance in America,” Boehner (R-OH) tells NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

Boehner and the Republicans are hoping for a repeat of 1994, when the GOP swept the midterm elections. He says the party is engaging with the public to develop the agenda it will enact if it secures a majority in November.

The party that controls the White House typically loses House seats during midterm elections, and Democrats are bracing for losses: 37 governorships, 36 Senate seats and the entire 435-member House are at stake.

Boehner says he’s optimistic about his party’s prospects, citing public anger over spending and debt. He says he believes “at least 100 seats” are in play.

“If [Republican Sen.] Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, there isn’t a seat in America the Republicans can’t win,” Boehner says. “What we’re seeing every day is the playing field widen, widen beyond anything we’ve seen around here during my 20 years.”

But Republicans face criticism that much of their time in the minority has been spent opposing Democratic proposals. Boehner rejects that charge, saying his party offered ideas on the stimulus bill, the budget and health care.

“If you look over the course of the last 16 months, every time we’ve had to oppose our Democrat colleagues, we’ve offered what we thought was a better solution,” he says.

Republicans Threatening Congressional Seats Long Held by Democrats

Republicans Threatening Congressional Seats Long Held by Democrats

Winds of change seen not only in places where posts often change hands.

By JEFF ZELENY & ADAM NAGOURNEY
THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: Saturday, April 24, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, April 24, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.

( page of 3 )

ASHLAND, Wis. | Rep. David Obey has won 21 straight races, easily prevailing through wars and economic crises that have spanned presidencies from Nixon to Obama. Yet the discontent with Washington surging through politics is now threatening not only his seat but Democratic control of Congress.

 

Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of big gains in November, and perhaps even winning back the House.

The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Democrats are preparing to lose as many as 30 House seats – including a wave of first-term members – and Republicans have expanded their sights to places where political challenges seldom develop.

“It’s not a lifetime appointment,” said Sean Duffy, a Republican district attorney here in the north woods of Wisconsin, where he has established himself as one of the most aggressive challengers to Obey since the Democrat went to Washington in 1969. “There are changes in this country going on and people aren’t happy.”

Obey, who leads the powerful Appropriations Committee, is one of three House Democratic chairmen who have drawn serious opposition. Reps. John Spratt of South Carolina, who oversees the Budget Committee, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, who runs the Armed Services Committee, have been warned by party leaders to step up the intensity of their campaigns to help preserve the Democratic majority.

These established House Democrats find themselves in the same endangered straits as some of their newer colleagues, particularly those who were swept into office in 2008 by Obama as he scored victories in traditionally Republican states like Indiana and Virginia.

Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he would consider anything short of taking back the House a failure. Republicans say they have not recruited strong candidates in all districts, but both parties agree that Republicans are within reach of capturing the 40 additional seats needed to win control. Republicans also are likely to eat into the Democratic majority in the Senate, though their prospects of taking control remain slim.

Democratic congressional officials – well aware that a president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections – have long been preparing for a tough year. But that Obey here in Wisconsin, and other veteran lawmakers like Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, suddenly find themselves in a fight reflects an increasingly sour mood toward the Democratic Party and incumbents.

“He’s supporting the party line of the Democrats, which is not consistent with North Dakota,” said Rick Berg, a Republican state representative from North Dakota who is challenging Pomeroy. “In the past, we’ve been more conservative at home than the people we send to Washington.” Asked if this was a good time to be a Republican candidate, Berg laughed and said: “I sure think so.”

Pomeroy, who has served for 18 years as the state’s only congressman, won two years ago with 62 percent of the vote. Now, he is among the top targets of House Republicans, and is fighting without the help of one of the state’s incumbent Democratic senators on the ballot, since Byron Dorgan chose to retire.

“Some cycles are more challenging as a candidate than others,” Pomeroy said. “This should be in the range of challenging cycles.”

Democrats worry that some lawmakers who have avoided tough races in the past could be at added risk of defeat because they are out of practice, slow on their feet and often reluctant to acknowledge the threat they are facing. The chairman of the House re-election effort, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, has called mandatory face-to-face meetings with vulnerable members to monitor their campaigns.

complete article below

Latest IDB/TIPP poll reveals issues and voters swinging to GOP

Latest IDB/TIPP poll reveals issues and voters swinging to GOP

Rick Moran

A new IDB/TIPP poll shows the voters unhappy with the president’s handling of the economy, the health care bill, and the veer to the left the country has taken:

Responses to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll suggest that the economy, one-party rule, the health care bill and the ascendancy of conservatism will be the four defining corners of the square in the political game coming in November.The Economy

This is the No. 1 issue on voters’ minds. The economy is in recovery, but double-digit unemployment is taking a toll. The November vote would likely reflect their frustration with incumbents and the incumbent party.

Nor is the president of much help to congressional Democrats because Americans do not see his economic performance in a favorable light.

Obama gets good grades from only one-third (34%) of those polled for his overall handling of the economy. And even fewer see his performance favorably on specific economic issues such as handling the federal budget (29%) and creating jobs (30%).

With the health care bill still very unpopular, Democrats are in grave danger of losing their majority in Congress:

The poll also asked Americans if they’d rather see Democrats retain control or Republicans regain control of Congress. Responses split evenly at 43%. But key voting blocs such as independents (43% to 32%) and seniors (48% to 38%) favor Republicans gaining control.

And this is one of the few polls that has bothered to measure how people see the president ideologically: 

The conservative tilt of the country has always existed. By steadfastly governing from the left, Obama has helped awaken core conservative values – smaller government, lower taxes and strong national security – in voters’ minds.

Now most Americans (57%) find themselves to right of Obama. On a 10-point ideology scale, where one is “Very Liberal” and 10 is “Very Conservative,” Obama gets a rating of 3.7. Americans give themselves a 6.0.

So much for Obama’s famed “pragmatic centrism.”

There is also a favorable impression of the tea party movement by Americans. The IBD/TIPP Poll of 924 Americans was taken April 5 to 10. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.