Democrats in the Deathmobile

Democrats in the Deathmobile

By on 3.19.10 @ 6:09AM

Does anyone else remember what happened Jan. 19? Did anyone else watch the confetti fly and hear the band play in the ballroom of Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel two months ago? Or was the election of a Republican to the Senate seat held for more than four decades by Ted Kennedy merely a dream?

Scott Brown won by pledging to be the Senate’s “41st vote” against Obamacare, but Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democrats seem intent on pretending that Brown’s historic victory in Massachusetts never happened as they prepare to enact the president’s health care plan By Any Means Necessary.

Pelosi’s implacable determination in the face of such clear indicators that voters oppose this measure has left opponents straining for analogies to describe the arguably unconstitutional process. Lindsey Graham insulted the Japanese by comparing Democrats to kamikaze pilots “liquored up on sake” for a suicide mission. It might be more diplomatic to compare Democratic maneuvers to the Animal House scene of Delta Tau Chi brothers crammed inside their hurtling Deathmobile: “Ramming speed!”

It would all be comical were it not for the possibility that this slapstick legislative fraternity prank — perpetrated by the “Slaughter Solution” with Enron-like accounting gimmicks from the Congressional Budget Office — might yet become law.

How did we arrive at this juncture? Health care was endlessly debated by Obama and the other Democratic presidential candidates during the 2007-08 primary season, creating a partisan consensus that something must be enacted, with only relatively minor details separating the White House rivals. By the time the general election rolled around, however, the campaign focus had shifted to how to deal with the economic meltdown.

When Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, it was understood that fixing the economy was his biggest challenge. His massive $789 billion “stimulus” bill was pushed through Congress with relative ease. He was overwhelmingly popular — in early March last year, he had a 64-percent approval rating in the Real Clear Politics average — and it seemed nothing could stop him from enacting his agenda. In mid-May, Pelosi promised that health-care legislation would “be on the floor by the end of July, I am quite certain,” and the president declared, “We’ve got to get it done this year.… The stars are aligned.”

Despite such favorable astrological omens, when Obama returned two months later from an overseas trip that included a G-8 summit in Rome and visits to Russia and Ghana, Pelosi’s promise was nowhere near fulfillment and Democrats offered hints of panic at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. After a White House huddle, Sen. Max Baucus said, “The urgency barometer is going up,” and a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “There was a strong agreement by everyone in the room that we can get a bill done before the start of the August recess.”

Yet neither the House nor Senate had produced a bill when the August recess arrived and, during town-hall meetings in their districts, members of Congress were besieged by angry citizens whom the Democratic National Committee denounced as “angry mobs” of “right-wing extremists.” Right-wing or otherwise, the widespread anger stemmed from indignation over out-of-control deficit spending and the belief that the Democrats’ focus on passing the health-care bill had distracted them from the more urgent task of fixing the economy.

Unemployment kept rising and it seemed nothing — not even a massive Sept. 12 Tea Party march on Washington — could get Democrats to listen. Just days after Republicans scored victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, Pelosi finally got the House to pass the health-care bill on Nov. 7. Reid held the Senate hostage to get approval for a much different version of the bill on Christmas Eve.

Even then, Scott Brown was driving his Dodge truck through the snow en route to the Jan. 19 Senate victory that most political observers at the time believed was the final death-blow to this unpopular legislation. Could there be a more decisive electoral verdict than for a Republican to be elected in liberal Massachusetts on a promise to stop the health-care bill?

Well, the voters be damned. Evidently swayed by White House arguments that “the fate of [Obama's] presidency” requires passage of the bill, House Democrats seem determined to ignore the meaning of Brown’s election. With the “41st vote” to prevent the Senate from approving a bicameral compromise version of Obamacare, the House is now heading toward a weekend scenario in which they will vote on a completely different piece of legislation while pretending to pass the Senate bill — and then hope that the Senate will play along with the charade.

“They’re obviously not doing this for policy reasons,” one GOP operative who worked on the Brown campaign said last night. “This is political, but nobody can figure out the politics of it.”

Administration arm-twisters are reportedly telling House Democrats that the bill, once passed, will magically overcome the unpopularity that has hitherto plagued it, and that by November voters will forget the extraordinary machinations by which Pelosi accelerated her legislative Deathmobile up to “ramming speed.”

At this point, however, the arguments for passage resemble another Animal House scene, with Obama in the role of Otter when he announces, “I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.” It remains to be seen whether House Democrats will supply Bluto’s famous answer: “We’re just the guys to do it.”

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Obamacare, Scott Brown

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Dems Craft Plan To Win In November As Heroes Of National Security And Jobs

Dems Craft Plan To Win In November As Heroes Of National Security And Jobs

March 18th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

reidhome111609

Roll Call:

Senate Democrats are planning an aggressive message campaign between now and November focusing on jobs, national security, the immediate impact of health care reform and their party’s efforts to “take on Wall Street.”

Hoping to reverse some of their political setbacks over the past 12 months, the lawmakers emerged Thursday from a closed-door message caucus — the third such meeting the conference has had this year — energized and saying they were pleased with the party’s direction.

“It was a good meeting … about the challenges we have [and] getting our message out” before November’s elections, Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) said.

According to Democrats present at the meeting, consultants and staff laid out specific language Democrats should use when discussing issues

For instance, one consultant provided specific examples of talking points members can use. “Here’s our 30-second message and here’s our 10-second message,” one Democrat said describing the presentation, noting that the language lesson was designed to provide lawmakers with a counter to GOP operative Frank Luntz’s work with linguistics.

A senior aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) then ran through the basic mechanisms for moving the Democrats’ message, stressing the need for lawmakers to remain unified and disciplined in how they talk about issues. The main point to lawmakers was “message, discipline and repeat,” a Democratic aide explained.

Democrats between now and November are expected to focus on a number of key issues within each of the broader message themes. For instance, on national security they will stress the Obama administration’s successes in killing a number of high-profile terrorists and the continuing successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On jobs, Democrats will use Reid’s rifle-shot approach to legislation to continually have a series of bills moving through the legislative pipeline to tout and will make a special push on green jobs.

Similarly, Democrats will use legislation being developed by Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) to portray themselves as the party “standing up for the little guy,” and on health care Democrats will stress the immediate impacts of the legislation. The goal on health care will be to “push out the immediate deliverables” to the public in order to explain why reform is benefiting them.

Thursday’s meeting was seen by some Democratic insiders as a key test of whether Reid and his operation have the confidence of the conference’s 22 freshman and sophomore members. Those lawmakers, led by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and others have taken an increasingly prominent role in shaping the party’s approach to battling Republicans. And while Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was an early convert to their more aggressive style — and Reid has long been hesitant to declare open war on the GOP — it appeared following the meeting the upstarts were pleased.

Here It Comes: The Second Stimulus

Here It Comes: The Second Stimulus

October 8th, 2009 Posted By Erik Wong.

stimulus-bull

“This time, the stimulus really will create jobs. No, really.”

WASHINGTON – Confronted with big job losses and no sign the U.S. economy is ready to stand on its own, Democrats are working on a growing list of relief efforts, leaving for later how to pay for them, or whether even to bother.

Proposals include extending and perhaps expanding a popular tax credit for first-time home buyers, and creating a new credit for companies that add jobs. Taken together, the proposals look a lot like another economic stimulus package, though congressional leaders don’t want to call it that.

Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House say they have no appetite for another big spending package that adds to the federal budget deficit, which hit a record $1.4 trillion for the budget year that ended last week.

But with unemployment reaching nearly 10 percent, many lawmakers are feeling pressure to act. Some of the proposals come from the Republicans’ playbook and focus on tax cuts, even though they, too, would swell the deficit.

“We have to do something for the unemployed, politically and economically,” said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

The House already has voted to extend unemployment benefits an additional 13 weeks for laid off workers in the 27 states where the jobless rate is 8.5 percent or above. Senate Democrats reached a deal Thursday to extend the benefits an additional 14 weeks in every state. Both proposals are paid for by extending a federal unemployment tax.

Also on the table: extending subsidies for laid-off workers to help them keep the health insurance their former employers provided, known as COBRA. The current program, which covers workers laid off through the end of the year, costs nearly $25 billion.

Congressional leaders haven’t settled on the length of an extension, or how to pay for it.

Several bills would issue extra payments to the more than 50 million Social Security recipients, to make up for the lack of a cost-of-living increase next year. One bill would set the one-time payments at $250, matching the amount paid to Social Security recipients and railroad retirees as part of the stimulus package enacted in February.

The payments would cost about $14 billion and would be paid for by applying the Social Security payroll tax to incomes between $250,000 and $359,000 in 2010. Currently, payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker’s income.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she is also considering a Republican proposal to allow money-losing companies to use their losses to get refunds of taxes paid in the previous five years. Under current law, most companies can only use current losses to get refunds from the previous two years.

“The issue of a net operating loss carryback to five years rather than two is an idea that has some currency,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi didn’t offer specifics, but a similar proposal that was dropped from the first stimulus package had a cost of $19.5 billion.

Pelosi said she is also looking into extending and expanding a popular tax credit for first-time homebuyers. The credit, set to expire Dec. 1, allows first-time homebuyers to reduce their federal income taxes by 10 percent of the price of a home, up to a maximum of $8,000.

Pelosi said the credit could be expanded to people who already own homes, though she offered no details. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has announced his support for extending the existing credit an additional six months.

“The question is, would that be just first-time homeowners or would you open it up to other purchasers of homes?” Pelosi said.

The program is scheduled to run for 11 months this year and cost a projected $6.6 billion. Extending or expanding the program would add to the costs.

Lawmakers are also working on proposals to award tax credits to companies that add jobs. Obama’s economic team proposed a similar incentive during negotiations over the stimulus package enacted in February but the idea was abandoned amid questions over its implementation.

A proposal by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., would provide a $4,000 tax credit, to be paid out over two years, for each new employee. His office could not provide a cost estimate.

Pelosi said lawmakers need to hear from economists before settling on a package to create jobs. “What is it that we can afford? What works the fastest?” Pelosi said.

Rep. Dave Camp, D-Mich., the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said: “The fact that they’re putting forward all of these things is really an indication that the stimulus was a failure. It didn’t work.”

Congress passed a $787 billion economic stimulus package in February, providing tax cuts for individuals and businesses, relief for the unemployed, spending on infrastructure and aid to the states.

President Barack Obama and other Democrats are adamant the package has lessened the effects of the recession, saving jobs that would have otherwise been cut. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent in September, the highest since 1983. A total of 15.1 million people are unemployed, and 7.2 million jobs have been eliminated since the recession began in December 2007.

Liberal-Islamist Alliance

Amil Imani

Liberal-Islamist Alliance
July 14, 2009
 

 

 

Presently, fanatical Islamists are lashing out with mad fury before their own final demise. The “infidel” world has been complicit in the surge of Islamism through its mistakes, complacency, and greed.

 

Our academia leftists even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits them. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of our leftist intellengtsia. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam itself, simply because they are redundant. Even a cursory study of Islam and its charter—the Quran—will clearly reveal that it is a radical political movement. It is the socialist leftists and paid-for-media and politicians who sanitize Islam and misguide the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

 

Our liberal professors claim that Islam is inherently good, the majority of Muslims are good and only a small minority has hijacked the good faith of Muhammad by engaging in acts of intolerance, hatred and violence. I agree, it is not uncommon to observe Muslims, anywhere in the world, who are indeed exemplary in many ways. They are kind, generous and much more. But these are the Cultural Muslims who are, in effect, only part Muslim.

 

The question is: why is it that the good Islam is not ruling in the world and the bad Islam is engulfing it in fire? Some clear instances of the rule of the real Islam are seen in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Pakistan, Sudan, and Somalia. Iranians are completely suffocated by the real Islam and that is one reason they are revolting against the rule of Sharia (Islamic Law) and that is why they are being butchered by the representative of Allah on earth, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who considers himself the shadow of “Allah.”

 

Human nature is also the culprit, in part. We humans are attracted to hate like flies are to honey. Hate is an easy sell. It is appealing and little effort is required to hate. Hate gathers up the person’s or the group’s frustrations, anxieties, fears, paranoia and many other negative emotions in one handy bundle and hurls it at a convenient target. History is replete with instances of hate energizing the masses into commitment of small and large scale atrocities.

 

All one has to do is to read the history of Islam and find out the truth for himself. Mainstream Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in what is known as “massacre of the Banu Qurayza” in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioners of slavery. The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheiks purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their own sadistic gratification.

 

The Islamist, with the help of our liberal leftists, take advantage of the provisions of the most benign system known to humanity, democracy, to implode it from within. Islamists, by sheer numbers, will soon be in a position to vote out democracy in many countries. They will elect Muslims to all positions of local influence, who will create and enforce policy according to the Quran. Once they have control over a town, they will begin to establish informal Sharia, and there’s nothing the government can (or will want to) do about it.

 

Sharia is the brutal means by which Islam controls its populations by force, intimidation, and punishments for offenses against Allah. Already, in many European countries, national governments have, out of fear, given Islamofascists the right to establish their own shadow governments within the borders of countries like Sweden and England and Netherlands where they can control their own populations without accountability. Proposals for Sharia are being taken seriously by Canada. Politicians, hungry for votes and devoted to the practice of political correctness, bend backward to accede to Islamists’ demands.

 

At the same time, Muslims will ally with Leftist politicians who will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers, so conservative politicians and Christians who advocate self defense and sane social policies are kept out of office. Money that was once used to build mosques will now be used to buy politicians. On university campuses, Islam will be portrayed as righteous and peaceful, while Christianity will be associated with evil Western and American values. The rebellious American youth will eat it up.

 

Leftist politicians will continue to hold the Bill of Rights over anyone who dares to accuse this religion of wrongdoing. While crime and threats skyrocket, Islamacized citizens will ignore the wrongdoing. They will look the other way for fear of retribution, honor killings, and punishments from those who uphold the Islamic requirement to seek revenge on anyone who dishonors or disagrees with Islam.

 

Don’t our liberal leftists assure us not to worry about Islamization of our country, the United States? After all, Muslims are about a minority of 6-7 million in a population of nearly 300 million, you reason. Even a smaller number of these Muslims are hothead radicals, while the majority is just like everyone else. But small minorities can overwhelm the majority by use of coercion and deadly force. Islamists are notorious for their dedication to the use of force for achieving their aims. The Taliban were a very small minority in Afghanistan, the Islamists were a tiny faction in the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran. Both overwhelmed the masses and imposed their reign of terror. The terrorist Hamas is also a “minority” in number, yet it rules the Palestinian Territory. Hizbollah of Lebanon is a minority, yet it has taken the country to the verge of destruction.

 

Wait! Should average Americans keep listening to self-styled expert liberal professors and politicians who have aligned themselves with the Islamists?

 

▪ Aren’t these the same experts who told us Hitler could not possibly be crazy enough to attack Russia or Britain?

 

▪ Aren’t these the same “experts” who tried to cover up Mao Tse Tung’s reign of terror in China, or Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia?

 

▪ Isn’t this the same “expertise” that assured us in the 1970’s that inflation was good, and could never be accompanied by a recession?

 

▪ Aren’t these the same folks who tell us the Saudis are our best friends in the Middle East, that the Titanic was unsinkable, that we should not succumb to our racist impulses by reporting suspicious Muslim men who are learning to fly jumbo jets?

 

▪ Didn’t ultra liberal Jimmy Carter call Ayatollah Khomeini, a holy man figure? And his ambassador to Iran, William Sulivan, said, “Khomeini is a Ghandi-like figure.” (Khomeini turned Iran into one of the biggest terror states ever and took American diplomats as hostage for 444 days. This “Ghandi-like” figure executed hundreds of thousands of political prisoners in 1988.)

 

▪ Aren’t these the same folks that told us goods imported from China are perfectly safe? Or that if we just “open up dialogue with our enemies,” we can create peace?

 

Hmmm…It seems we have much to worry about when the “authorities” begin to disseminate their collective wisdom. And don’t bank on the politicians either. They are the master practitioners of the art of the politically correct.

 

Shaming the devil incites the devil, calling the USSR an “evil empire” did not win Ronald Reagan points for diplomacy, but nonetheless, it was an evil empire. Calling Nazis evil did not help endear the Americans to the Germans either, but they were slaughtering the Jewish Poles down to the last child. Calling Islam an evil empire, most likely doesn’t sit well with “moderate Muslims,” but at least in the end will save lives.

 

This is also why liberal appeasers in 1938, who refused to call Hitler “evil,” got the world into so much trouble by creating a similar confused intellectual forum about the Nazis. They tried to build bridges to the “moderate” Nazis; they lectured clear thinkers about the dangers of inciting German hatred by pointing out the truth. They accused conservatives of being “just as fascist” as the Nazis (Napolitano called conservatives “right-wing extremists), they sent ambassadors and made treaties and trusted that the moderates would come out and “reform” their zealous leadership. And they were wrong

 

Fascism is exactly what Political Islam was crafted to be. It is no coincidence that Islamism has historically been so cozy with the fascist left. The left habitually underestimates the intelligence of the American people. The left is chronically unhappy about America, because it is looking in the mirror and rightfully sees its own miserable reflection. Any time anyone arises to serve this great nation and aims to keep it on its course toward its glorious destiny, the left recoils.

 

In the West, an unholy coalition of mentally-deranged suicidal-homicidal liberals, together with self-aggrandizing Islamic apologists, are doing their level best to assist the Islamists in the destruction of the existing order of freedom and liberty.

 

To make matters worse, a vociferous clique of local leftists, “useful idiots,” with a suicide wish, are doing all they can to take the country with them to the grave they so earnestly seek. These self-appointed squatters of the higher-ground are riding so high on their high horse that they are blind to the realities down on earth. The leftists don’t realize that the opponents of Islamism demonize Islamism with Muhammad’s own words and deeds. You cannot be a serial murderer and complain that it is unfair for the DA to constantly harp about all those people you killed!

 

The liberal left vows that we cannot win the war on terror only on the battlefield. Yes, but tell that to the Viennese who in 1632 defeated the marauding Muslims to save Christian Europe from slaughter and annihilation. Explain that to the Sudanese Christians of 2007. How about the Coptic Christians in Egypt? Does anyone know where all the Christians and Hindus in Pakistan went? Ask the French and Spanish how Charlemagne and Castile unceremoniously removed the Moors from Spain and France. And what happened in 1948, the day Israel was legally declared a nation? Oh, the battlefield is an ugly place, but it seems to have been the only way militant Islam has been repulsed. Most loving Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, rest assured that love does not conquer Islamism.

 

I have asserted in the past there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, but we have Muslims who have become Cultural Muslims. This truth is not escaping intellectual blogs because politically correct media cannot bring themselves to rank religions or admit that some things are truly good or bad. They do not want to offend their liberal or Islamic audiences. But in this great argument, they are way behind the curve. The people are anxious for the truth. The people must know the truth so that they can defend themselves against a deadly and powerful adversary.

 

I believe this is the most important argument facing us right now, but as long as fence-sitters feel capable of condemning “all forms of extremism” unchecked, most people will not take sides. Only when it is clear that (whether or not people will admit it overtly) Islamism is unjust and dangerous. Will we get support for a number of tough measures that should send Islamism back to its cage where it belongs?

 

It is constructive to note how Islamists engage others in discussion. When they don’t like what they hear, they resort to ridicule, accusations and name-calling. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if these people would, for once, abandon their primitive mindset and use a civilized method of dialogue?

 

Muslims must be encouraged to reject, if not Islam itself, one of its deadly derivatives, Islamism, which has become a sharp thorn, inflicting huge pain in our civilized society. They must be encouraged to combat radicalism. They must know that the free people of the world eagerly embrace them with open arms once they rise to the occasion and defeat Islamism

We, in the United States of America must resist Islamism while it is still gathering momentum, unless we wish to end up in the same fix as the Europeans.

About Amil Imani
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He and his family escaped Iran after the radical Islamic revolution.

An Open Letter to Our Nation’s Leadership

An Open Letter to Our Nation’s Leadership

by Web Producer

I am Janet Contreras, a concerned, home-grown American citizen. I am 53, and I have been a registered Democrat all of my adult life. Before the last Presidential election, I registered Republican because I no longer feel the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. I now no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.

There must be someone, please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me you are there and are willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please do it now.

You might ask yourselves what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me? These are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

* Illegal Immigration—I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S. I am not a racist. This not to be confused with legal immigration.

* TARP Bill—I want it repealed and no further funding supplied to it. We told you “NO!” but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze! Repeal!

* Czars—I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the Czars. No more Czars. Government officials answer to the process not the President. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

* Cap & Trade—the debate on global warming is NOT over, there IS more to say.

* Universal Health Care—I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

* Growing Government Control—I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Please mind your own business; you have enough to do with your REAL obligations. Let’s start there.

* ACORN—I do not want ACORN or its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them on every real estate deal that closes. Stop all funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audit and investigation. I do not trust them with the taking of the census or with taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before the taxpayers get any further involved with them. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck—hello… stop protecting political buddies. You work for the people. Investigate.

* Redistribution of Wealth—No. If I work for it, it is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth I support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do want me to hate my employers? What do your have against shareholders making a profit?

* Charitable Contributions—although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities where we know our needs best and can use local talent and resources. Butt out, please. We want to do this ourselves.

* Corporate Bail Outs—knock it off! Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we will be better off just getting to it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful, like ripping off a band aid. We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us a chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

* Transparency and Accountability—how about it? No really, let’s have it. Let’s say we give the “buzz” words a rest and have some straight, honest talk. Please stop trying to manipulate and appease me with cleaver wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

* Unprecedented Quick Spending—stop it, now. Take a breath. Listen to “The People.”

Let’s just slow down and get some more input from some “non-politicians” on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law.

I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant nor a violent person. I am a mother and grandmother. I am a working woman. I am busy, busy, busy and tired, tired, tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawns and wash our cars on weekends, and be responsible, contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same, all the while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding our Constitution and believed in the checks and balances to keep you from getting too far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think that I find humor in hiring a speed reader to unintelligibly ramble through a bill you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not! It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face! I am not laughing—the arrogance!

Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it, but you expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children? We did not want that TARP bill. We said “NO!” We would repeal it if we could. I am not sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all the recent spending. From my perspective, it seems that you have all gone insane.

I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back!

You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.

Good News: Congress gives itself a raise

Good News: Congress gives itself a raise

Rick Moran
They could have frozen their pay as the Congress did in 2000. They could have refused the pay raise and made some political hay for themselves.

Instead, each and every Member of Congress will receive a $4,700 pay increase courtesy of us, their grateful constituents.

Still, Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Congress should have taken the rare step of freezing its pay, as lawmakers did in 2000.

“Look at the way the economy is and how most people aren’t counting on a holiday bonus or a pay raise — they’re just happy to have gainful employment,” said Ellis. “But you have the lawmakers who are set up and ready to get their next installment of a pay raise and go happily along their way.”

Member raises are often characterized as examples of wasteful spending, especially when many constituents and businesses in members’ districts are in financial despair.

These are the same group of hypocrites who railed against auto executives who showed up on Capitol Hill after flying into town on a private jet. This is the same bunch that has railed against Wall Street greed. This is the same lot of pious dolts who are blaming free markets and capitalism for the economic downturn.

But what’s good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander in this case. The pay raise is set up automatically so the members don’t even have to vote on it and take a stand over their own salary. It is underhanded, dishonest, and cowardly – which fits in quite nicely with the Democratic Congress and the plans they have for the nation starting next month.

An average congressman makes $169,300 a year.

What’s the “highest form” of patriotism again?

What’s the “highest form” of patriotism again?

Ed Lasky
It is official. Red-staters are more patriotic than blue staters.

Even more important than these general demographic shifts is the change wrought by the end of the draft in 1973. Until then, military service was distributed pretty evenly across regions. But that is no longer true. The residential patterns for current veterans and the patterns of state-level contributions of new recruits to the all-volunteer military have a distinct geographic tilt. And tellingly, the map of military service since 1973 aligns closely with electoral maps distinguishing red from blue states.

In 1969, the 10 states with the highest percentage of veterans were, in order: Wyoming, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, California, Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut and Illinois.

In 2007, the 10 states with the highest percentage of post-Vietnam-era veterans were, in order: Alaska, Virginia, Hawaii, Washington, Wyoming, Maine, South Carolina, Montana, Maryland and Georgia.

Over the past four decades, which states have disappeared from the top 10? California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois, all big blue states that have voted Democratic in the past five presidential elections. These states and another blue state, New York, which ranked 12th in 1969, are among the 10 states with the lowest number of post-Vietnam vets per capita. New Jersey comes in 50th of the 50 states; just 1 percent of current residents have served in the military since Vietnam.

Yes, the numbers are revealing. To make this more palatable for many, the op-ed was written by a scholar from the Institute for Advanced Study based in Princeton, New Jersey Of course, blue staters will opine that dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism or other such balderdash. I prefer the traditional definition.  A patriot is someone who loves his nation so much he is willing to commit the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.

The bias against the South (heavily red states) in major media and among coastal elites (excluding the Gulf Coast, of course) has been scandalous. I made this point-as well as noting the varying degrees of willingness to serve in the military-in an article I wrote for the American Thinker last year, The South Rises.

Socialism We Can Believe In

Socialism We Can Believe In

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/29/2008

 

Now that a 2001 public radio interview has surfaced to confirm The One has plotted to redistribute middle class wealth since the beginning of his political career, the media are in overdrive to save their savior. In a burst of “news” stories culled directly from the talking points of the George Soros-funded Media Matters, a string of reporters have accused the McCain/Palin campaign of misrepresenting Obama’s statements and ideology. In the process, these impartial journalists and analysts for the nation’s most prestigious media outlets have obfuscated more than McCain could manage in his most imaginative “rhetorical flourish.”

 

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded in identical fashion to other irrefutable scandals, such as his candidate’s longtime association with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright: he channeled the Wizard of Oz. “This is a fake news controversy,” he said, “drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report, and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months.” After shooting the messengers, the campaign, and its allies at Media Matters, claimed Obama had merely been offering an intellectual assessment of civil rights strategy – and in no way advocating (perish the thought!) the Supreme Court redistribute wealth. In his only remark addressing the content of the tape, Burton asserted, “In this seven-year-old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all.”[1]

 

Soon, his words found their way into the mouths of multiple unbiased, independent journalists.

 

The Washington Post awarded the McCain campaign “two Pinocchios” for lying about the tape. “Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said,” the Post contended. The paper concluded, “The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an [sic.] ‘wealth redistribution’ role for the Supreme Court.”

 

Obama made his now-infamous comments on “Odyssey,” a program hosted on the Chicago NPR station WBEZ-FM. Chicago Public Radio quickly rolled into full protection mode, with CPR’s Ben Calhoun claiming someone on YouTube “posted excerpts of the interview, edited to misrepresent Obama’s statements…Obama’s position is distinctly misrepresented.” He adds, “ironically, he says the Supreme Court was a failure in cases that it took on a role of redistributing resources.

 

Others went further in defending the pure common sense of Obama’s call for “economic justice.” Andrew Sullivan blogged, “it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism. Is this really all McCain has left?”

 

Yet no one could equal NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who said, with a straight face, that Obama took “a strict constructionist view.” Mitchell added, “he was saying the courts were not in that business and shouldn’t be in that business.”

 

 

The world’s largest news agency joined the fray. The Associated Press charged, “Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama.” The story implies his comments dealt only with civil rights strategy, not the court. It added, “Obama did not define redistributive change in the interview, but he said one example of such change involves education, ‘how do we get more money into the schools and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity.’” Thus, “redistribution” simply means equal schooling; who could be against that?

 

The last emphasis echoed the defense Cass Sunstein offered in The New Republic. In Sunstein’s telling, Obama:

 

complained, not that the Court refused to enter into those issues, but that “the civil-rights movement became so court-focussed” [sic.] … In answering a caller’s question, he said that the court “is just not very good at” redistribution. Obama added, with approval, that the Constitution “is generally a charter of negative liberties”…Obama was referring to the sorts of claims being made in courts in the relevant period, for which the word “redistribution” has often been used. (Those claims involved denials of education and medical care, and discrimination in welfare programs.) It is true that Obama supports the Earned Income Tax Credit (an idea pioneered by Republicans)…

 

But it is truly ridiculous to take Obama’s remarks in 2001 as suggesting that the nation should embark on a large-scale redistributive scheme.

 

The piece does not mention Sunstein is “a Harvard law professor who is advising Obama.”[2]

 

In all these cases, one is left with the impression his is merely a meandering historical argument of refined legal theory, using highly specified language that does not mean what it sounds like. Normal people like Joe the Plumber cannot possibly comprehend it. However, all these media reports distort the facts and leave a false impression that covers up the explosive revelation contained in his own words: Barack Obama believes the Constitution embodies a “fundamental flaw” in the fabric of America “that continues to this day,” has pined for “economic justice” for at least a decade, seeks political power to implement “wealth redistribution” with the aid of Congress, implies the Supreme Court should “break free” from the “constraints” of the Founders, believes public financing of abortion is an “important” aspect of the struggle, and has promised an “activist” Executive Branch to enforce his socialistic vision.

 

Obama begins, as his media backers note, by discussing “the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court.” Among its successes he counts the High Court’s vesting blacks with “formal rights,” such as the right to vote. “But,” he rapidly pivots, “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” This he plainly counts among the movement’s “failures,” indeed “tragedies.”

 

This indicates he intends more than mere adequate funding for Tuscaloosa elementaries but the fundamental economic life of the nation. He illustrated the success of “formal rights” by saying under the Court’s rulings, “I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be OK.” He later answered a caller’s question about whether it was “too late” for nationwide “reparative economic work.” (See below.) Later yet, when fellow panelist Susan Bandes broached the topic of the Supreme Court’s upholding lawmakers’ right to prohibit the federal funding of abortion, Obama replied that the justices did not order funding, as they would if they were activists. They decided whether it was “a legitimate prohibition,” adding, “I think those are very important battles that have to be fought, and they do have a distributive aspect to them.” (Media Matters dropped this phrase from later press releases.) Barack Obama’s comments clearly touched upon a broad view of redistribution of wealth, encompassing everything from minority income to abortion subsidies, all viewed favorably. (In fact, Obama still supports taxpayer funding for abortion and has vowed to restore it.)

 

Far from making a “strict constructionist” argument that the High Court should not rule on such matters, he made a procedural argument that there are more effective ways to remedy this tragedy. In response to a question whether it was “too late” for “reparative economic work,” and whether it should be mandated by the courts or the legislature, Obama assessed, “I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way” and is “just not very good at it.” He added, “any three of us sitting here” on this panel “could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that as a practical matter our courts are just poorly equipped to do it.

 

That constitutes a robust rejection of neither judicial activism nor economic redistribution, which he had endorsed above. He simply projected the Supreme Court would not be the most likely nor most effective vehicle for these policies. In his remarks on the civil rights movement’s “tragedies,” he listed foremost its failure “to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” He observed, “in some ways we still suffer from that” – namely, that community organizers have not yet elected one of their own to the White House. He now leads what is, according to polls, the nation’s largest power-seeking coalition. In 2001, Obama deemed redistribution “a process that is essentially administrative”; one is hardly out of bounds in asking whether it will make the agenda of an Obama administration. The Post admits in its article that “Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion” told them, “‘Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about.’” Sunstein defined redistribution by presenting a list of numerous extant federal wealth-transfer programs including the progressive income tax “and much more.” As FrontPage Magazine columnist Paul Sperry addressed yesterday, his little-examined platform outlines a redistributionist agenda heavily geared toward infusing wealth into urban households.

 

Obama’s interview stokes suspicions all the more with his positive view of an “activist” Executive Branch. When his interviewer, Gretchen Helfrich, mentioned the possibility of a “one-two punch of a Justice Department and a Court together,” he praised the notion. He noted “the sheer resources involved in actively litigating and monitoring activity at the local level” are staggering and not available to the justices, “and without an activist Attorney General’s office and Justice Department that is able to come in and provide just the sheer resources that are required, many of these changes just don’t take place.” If an Obama administration will undo the tragic failure of the civil rights movement to bring about “economic justice,” it will flex federal muscle to do so.

 

None of which should imply he has no role for an activist Supreme Court. Like a true law professor, he found the notoriously activist Warren Court “wasn’t that radical,” because it:

 

didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.

 

Having listened to the audio, this author did not hear these last words spoken “with approval.” And if Obama appoints the Court’s justices, its outlook could well shift from negative to positive rights; in fact, he cites state courts as encouraging signs of this elsewhere in the interview. However, the judicial philosophy implicit in this statement is frightening: that the Founding Fathers’ views of limited government are “constraints” from which the nation should “break free.” (He did not describe, e.g., the 14th amendment or the elastic clause in such negative terms.) The Founders crafted “negative rights” for a reason. George Washington told his fellow countrymen, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” For that reason, Thomas Jefferson urged “in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” By contrast, Barack Obama urges the government to become free at last.

 

To do so, he believes the Court can “take judicial notice of” societal phenomena and interpret the Constitution accordingly. “[Y]ou’ve got a whole host of social conditions that the Court inevitably is influenced by,” he stated with approval. He added the Warren Court took these developments into consideration to enact “one of those rare circumstances where the Court is willing to get slightly beyond conventional opinion, and stake a place sort of beyond the political mainstream.” However, “in the case of Brown, I think there were a lot of social changes...before you see the Supreme Court being willing to venture out into the areas that they did.” But the role of the Court is not to orient itself around conventional social and political opinion, whether ahead, behind, or in the middle of its dominant arc; its role is to interpret the U.S. Constitution as written. As an increasing number of Supreme Court justices believe they must take foreign law into consideration, rejection of this principle grows more ominous.

 

As does the agenda Obama lays out in the interview. In one stunning passage, he likened the environmental debate to the abolitionist movement, lamenting that current environmental laws are made on a cost-benefit analysis rather than on the basis of rights – as though the land had the same worth as a human slave. This, he seems to say, must be rectified.

 

He further states slavery itself has not been cleaned up yet. He said, “The Constitution reflected a [sic.] enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on to this day.” He went on to make clear this was the document’s acceptance of slavery. Thus the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” Obama clearly believes, in some sense, slavery has not yet been stamped out. One can reasonably assume he would thus favor reparations to establish “political and economic justice in this society” at last. Perhaps this sense of urgency explains why he believes his election is “the moment…that the world has been waiting for.” Yet the view that slavery lingers in 21st century America is perhaps the most contemptuous thing one can say about a country that lost hundreds of thousands of lives fighting a war to end slavery, endured massive social upheaval to bury Jim Crow, transferred untold trillions of dollars of wealth so that we wouldwipe away the scars of centuries,” then welcomed the son of a Kenyan Muslim reared in a foreign land and are presently entertaining a national debate about elevating him to the most powerful office in the world.

 

It is, however, precisely what is to be expected from an individual reared by an “unreconstructed liberal” mother of the ‘60s era, an individual who consciously sought out Marxist professors – both as college instructors and as sponsors for his career in Chicago politics.

 

Far from an insignificant and highly theoretical bout of legal navel-gazing, this 2001 interview provides a clear glimpse into the ideology Obama wishes to implement. For this reason, the transcripts must be assailed – with those news outlets that report them.

 

After all, he does not have the luxury of saying he made these comments when he was naïve and inexperienced, because he is still naïve and inexperienced. Further, reparations based on race, sex, class, or sexual orientation still lie at the heart of his judicial philosophy. His only option is to deny the words on the page. His fan base in the media has gotten ahead of him on the matter. Will he be successful in his effort to deny his own views and thereby get an opportunity to implement them?

 

Next Tuesday, we may find out.

 

ENDNOTES:

1. Bill Burton later got into an on-air tiff with Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly, ironically charging her network with having “an agenda.”

 

2. The Earned Income Tax Credit was created by Senator Russell Long, D-Louisiana, the son of the infamous Huey “Kingfish” Long, whose program for addressing the Great Depression was known as “Share Our Wealth.” Its central pillar stated, “by limiting the size of the fortunes and incomes of the big men, we will throw into the government Treasury the money and property from which we will care for the millions of people who have nothing.” 

 

 



Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and co-author, with David Horowitz, of the book Party of Defeat. He is also the author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving.

Media Censors Create Shield Around Obama

Media Censors Create Shield Around Obama

By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY | Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Big Media have pulled out all their stops in trying to elect Barack Obama by withholding from the American people the truth about his radical record and associates. Big Media, their polls and the presidential debates practically ignored front-burner issues important to millions of Americans.

By excluding abortion and same-sex marriage from national debate, Big Media kept voters from knowing that Obama, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, killed the “Born Alive” bill, thereby depriving babies born alive from botched abortions of medical care and nutrition.

Big Media obviously didn’t want a repetition of Obama’s embarrassing handling of these issues in the Saddleback dialogue.

The issue of illegal aliens was censored out of the presidential debates and other coverage. The voters were kept oblivious to the fact Obama favors giving driver’s licenses to illegals and John McCain does not. This issue is so powerful with the voters that it played a major role in the dumping of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the unprecedented recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. It could have done likewise to Obama.

How many times have you heard that Obama will cut taxes on 95% of Americans? Have you even once heard Big Media tell us that’s a big lie because 40% of Americans don’t pay any federal income taxes at all?

Talking about “95%” means Obama intends to increase government handouts, such as the earned income tax credit, to nontaxpaying Americans. That would surely be compatible with his promise to “spread the wealth around.”

Big Media have threatened to hang a scarlet letter on anyone who dares to mention Obama’s middle name.

Funny thing, in all the years that I spent criticizing the disarmament-appeasement policies of JFK’s and LBJ’s secretary of defense, Robert Strange McNamara, nobody ever said I was unfair to use his strange middle name.

But Obama is different. Big Media have cloaked him with a security blanket that not only protects him from criticism, but also viciously attacks anybody who tells the truth about Obama’s life story in Indonesia, Hawaii, Kenya or Chicago.

On Oct. 15, the New York Times ran a front-page, above-the-fold, pretend-news article threatening McCain that Big Media will not tolerate any negative attacks on Obama, such as talking about Obama’s relationship with the 1960s terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Times warned McCain and his supporters that it is unacceptable to make “strong political attacks” on Obama or be “sharply personal” or even use an “angry tone.” But the voters have a right to know who are and were Obama’s associates. Old adages are still valid: “Birds of a feather flock together” and “A man is known by the company he keeps.”

Why don’t Big Media tell us that Obama launched his political campaign in the Chicago living room of former Weather Underground terrorist Ayers, who was famous for bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon?

Why don’t Big Media tell us about the relationship of Obama on school issues with Ayers, who as a professor of education is now working to replace the three R’s with a fourth: rebellion against the U.S. social and economic structure.

When Sean Hannity aired a program about “Obama and Friends,” the New York Times rushed forth to defend Obama’s ties with Ayers and to attack Hannity’s program as “partisan” and “provocative.” We are apparently not permitted to be partisan or provocative about Obama.

How could Obama sit in a church for 20 years where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright spoke hatefully about whites and cursed America as a racist country? Yet Big Media now claim it is racist for anyone to criticize Obama’s long and personal association with Jeremiah “damn America” Wright.

Why don’t Big Media dissect the revelations and biases in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” with the same journalistic curiosity they use about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe?

Big Media present Obama as some sort of intellectual, but why don’t we hear about his failure to write anything meaningful for the Harvard Law Review when he was its affirmative-action president?

Why don’t we hear more about Obama’s friendship with the communist Frank Marshall Davis, who was part of a Soviet-sponsored network in Hawaii?

Why aren’t we given details about Obama’s financial relationship with Tony Rezko, the Chicago fixer now in prison?

The source of money has always been fair game for anybody to talk about in political campaigns. Why haven’t Big Media assigned their investigative reporters to trace the hundreds of millions of dollars that may be illegally flowing to the Obama campaign from foreign sources?

Pew Research confirms that 70% of Obama’s media coverage has been positive and 60% of McCain’s has been negative.

Memo to the American people: Will we let Big Media decide this election by censoring the news we have a right to know?

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Dem Playbook Shows Dirty Tactics

Dem Playbook Shows Dirty Tactics
Amanda Carpenter
Monday, October 27, 2008

Dirty campaign tricks don’t die. They just become more refined with age.

Documents obtained by Townhall show the Democratic Party encouraged party activists to accuse the GOP of intimidating minorities on Election Day even if no evidence of intimidation existed in the 2004 presidential election. The tactic is being used again in 2008, this time to downplay fraud charges against a predominantly minority non-profit supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Weeks before the Nov. 4 election Barack Obama’s campaign said the Republicans are attempting to suppress votes by drawing attention to the Association for Community Organizers for Reform Now’s involvement in rampant voter registration fraud across the nation. The nonprofit actively supports Democratic causes, such as minimum wage increases and housing assistance. ACORN endorsed Obama for president last February and has been paid by his campaign to conduct get out the vote activities during the Democratic primary.

ACORN wasn’t a household name in the last election but documents show Democrats were just as eager to accuse the GOP of treating minorities unfairly in 2004 as they are in 2008.

A nine-page section of 66-page 2004 Kerry Edwards Colorado state Election Day Manual titled “Minority Voter Intimidation” begins: “Over the past twenty years, there have been repeated efforts by the Republican party and Republican Party candidates to harass and intimidate minority voters in an effort to reduce the number of African-American and/or Latino voters.” The manual then instructs Democrats how to look for minority voter intimidation tactics and how to publicize it to the media with special tactics designed for mainstream and specialty press.

Such intimidation tactics might take the forms of “efforts to create longer lines at the polls, targeting in minority communities,” or “slower responses to voting machine breakdowns in minority precincts.”

“If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.’” The manual said this should be done by placing stories in mainstream and specialty press “in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics” and “prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.”

Some of the suggested talking points included lines like “Nothing is more despicable than trying to deprive any American of the previous right to vote, the foundation of our democracy for which so many have sacrificed.”

The 2004 manual said a preemptive strategy was “particularly well-suited to states in which there [sic] tactics have been tried in the past.”

The Democrats’ preemptive strike has been delivered from Barack Obama’s legal team this time around.

Obama’s lawyers are demanding that the Department of Justice to investigate GOP presidential candidate John McCain, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and other Republican politicians because they have drawn attention to ACORN’s fraudulent activities on the campaign trail.

“Agents of the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee have been striking locally at election officials and boards around the country, sowing confusion and seeking through baseless legal maneuvers to discourage and harass voters and impede their exercise of their right to vote,” Obama for America’s General Counsel Robert Bauer said on a conference call with reporters last week.

Obama’s legal team is specifically taking issue with McCain’s remarks that ACORN’s voter registration fraud “threatens the fabric of our Democracy” and Palin’s assessment that there is a “choice between a candidate who won’t disavow a group committing voter fraud and a leader who won’t tolerate voter fraud.”

Bauer made his request for an investigation in a letter to the DOJ that said McCain and Palin were “sensationalizing this message by repeating it at the state and local level in violation of the law to harass voters and impede their exercise of their rights.”

Former Republican Sens. John Danforth of Missouri and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire are chairing an “Honest and Open Elections Committee” on behalf of the McCain campaign to take action against voter fraud. The GOP has asked Obama to participate, but the Democrats have declined.

Bauer said the committee will impede people from voting rather than safeguarding against voter fraud.

“They get a United States senator who’s the head of the Republican ticket doing everything he can to make it harder for them to be — to vote, making it harder for them to get through the lines quickly, making it harder for them to cast their ballot without impediment, without harassment, without humiliation,” Bauer told reporters.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers