Sarah Palin: America Speaks Out! It’s time to take back our government and put it on our side. Remember it’s “We the People”!

Sarah Palin: America Speaks Out!

America Speaks Out!
 Yesterday at 10:34am
Here’s a great forum for those who believe it’s time to stand up and be heard! From the tea party movement to the town halls, we’ve seen Americans rise up and make their voices heard. From the bailouts to the wasteful stimulus spending bill to the $2.5 trillion health care take over, Washington stopped listening to us average everyday hardworking Americans… so we’re doing something about that.

Today a new website was launched to change the situation!

Led by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, a new project is now launched called “America Speaking Out” which is aimed at giving us a direct role in putting together a new policy agenda for our country based on the principles of smaller, more accountable government.

Check out the website at http://www.americaspeakingout.com/ and make your voices heard.

It’s time to take back our government and put it on our side. Remember it’s “We the People”!

- Sarah Palin

Dhimmicrats on the March? Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.

Dhimmicrats on the March?

By Ken Blackwell

What’s a dhimmicrat, you say? It’s not the same thing as a Democrat. A dhimmicrat is a person who, while not Muslim himself, nonetheless clears the path for shariah law to be adopted and incorporated into otherwise free nations.

One prime example of this would be the Right Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Normally, you would think this top Anglican cleric, who lives in a palace in London, would appreciate Britain’s history as the world’s leader in the Rule of Law. As a minister of the Gospel, Mr. Williams might see his country as a Christian country. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, an immigrant from Pakistan, has tried heroically to awaken Britons to their peril. Bishop Nazir-Ali says English law and the Christian religion are the two things that make Britain great. And every day, dhimmicrats like Rowan Williams are trading away their birthright for a mess of pottage. Rowan Williams said Britain must accommodate herself to shariah law in large swaths of her urban neighborhoods.
Another example of dhimmicrats would be the Pentagon bureaucrats who recently banned Rev. Franklin Graham from addressing Christians who work there because Rev. Graham has been critical of Muslim terrorists. Does anyone else think it’s weird that the Pentagon — which is supposed to be leading the worldwide war on terror — jihadist terror — finds a Christian evangelist too hot to handle?
Jimmy Carter may be the leading dhimmicrat in the world. Carter, of course, won his Nobel Peace Prize not just for his work in reconciling Israelis and Egyptians in the famous Camp David Accords of 1978. If the Nobelers wanted simply to honor that achievement, they might have bestowed their once-prestigious prize on Carter in ’79 or ’80. Such a prize would probably have made a nice consolation present for Carter when Ronald Reagan beat him like a drum in the 1980 elections.
Instead, the Nobel Committee waited for two decades, during which time Carter has outdone himself in denunciations of Israel. Carter likened Israel’s security fence to South African apartheid. He has spent his post-presidency maligning the Jewish state while kowtowing to Arab “leaders.” These so-called leaders never have to face the voters. Maybe that’s why Dhimmi Carter likes them.
What is dhimmitude, anyway? It’s the status — or lack of status– that is accorded to non-believers in Muslim-dominant countries. Dhimmis get to pay special taxes for not being Muslim. They get to be excluded from many educational and professional opportunities. They get to have their churches burned and their communities attacked. If you want to know more about what life is like under dhimmitude, just ask the Copts of Egypt. But ask these hardy Christians here. Don’t ask them there.
Eric Holder is a leading dhimmicrat in government today. Our Attorney General has yet to rule out a civilian trial in Manhattan for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad boasted of how he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl. A more loathsome human being would be hard to imagine. But Eric Holder is giving Khalid Sheikh Muhammad all the rights accorded to American citizens accused of mass murder. Why? Why, too, should Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, be given a Miranda warning and allowed to escape trial before a military tribunal? Our A.G. has no coherent answer to these questions.
The answer is that dhimmicrats fear to offend. Fear drives them to make concession after concession. They are forever apologizing. The Crusades? Don’t even mention the word. That can set them off. Jihadists today complain about Crusaders’ cruelty in the 12th century. (That’s odd. I don’t remember riots when Saddam Hussein murdered 400,000 Muslims in his forty-year reign of terror.) In Britain, timorous town councilors even banned Winnie the Pooh because the character of Piglet might offend some residents. These councilors are dhimmicrats all. The dhimmicrats are on the march.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. He serves on the board of directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, and National Rifle Association and is co-author of The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.

Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

Obama Thinks Constitution Flawed Without Redistribution Of Wealth

October 27, 2008 · 23 Comments

I cannot even believe this.  First of all, I heard the fact that Obama thought the Constitution was flawed being discussed on MSNBC of all places.  Most shocking since they are his biggest media cheering section.  Even more glaring are the words that Obama uttered in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.  But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. 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 in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

 And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Keep in mind that Barack Obama has been a law professor on the Constitution.  This is a document he has spent alot of time studying and yet he completely misses the point.  Our Founding Fathers said that we are indowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.  Those are automatic and the Constitution and other founding documents merely defined those rights so that the government could never take those away.  It is not a document of “negative liberties”.  The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government.  Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Declaration speaks of has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth.  And the courts are not meant to be radical.  Keep that in mind as you consider that Obama may get the chance to appoint three Supreme Court justices and countless local judges.  And keep in mind that the Warren Court has been the most liberal court this country ever had.

Obama’s spokesman Bill Burton had this to say, “In this interview back in 2001, Obama was talking about the civil rights movement – and the kind of work that has to be done on the ground to make sure that everyone can live out the promise of equality. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut. It’s just another distraction from an increasingly desperate McCain campaign.”  It truly is amazing how gullible the Obama campaign thinks Americans are by constantly calling truth that shines the light on a Marxist Obama “distractions”.  This is everything!  The economy, the wars, abortion…none of that matters if we lose our freedom.  What an Obama presidency will change those words to is: The economy becomes redistribution of wealth, wars become Martial Law here in America with boots on our streets and terrorists able to destroy us and abortion becomes Eugenics where only the best get to live.  Liberals love to compare President Bush to Hitler.  They’ve got the wrong man.

Why Conservatives Love the Founders

Why Conservatives Love the Founders

By James Lewis

A Salon writer wonders, “What’s the conservative fetish with the Founding Fathers?”

It’s because we read history, my sadly ignorant friend. So did the Founders.
History is full of Obamas, and the people who idolized such power-hungry self-glorifying narcissists. The Founders understood human history in their very bones, because they read history from the Bible to the Roman Empire, Europe’s bloody and tyrannical history, and the Americas. If you want to understand Obama, just look at any idolized hero in Latin America: Chavez, Fidel, Bolivar, Juan Peron. Look at European monarchs. Look at Napoleon.
They are all the famous Man on Horseback, the hero of the hour who instantly turns into a tyrant. Even today Latin America is bedeviled by its own Obamas, who all demand to be idolized and worshipped. Obamas are a dime a dozen.
The Founders knew about abuse of power by arrogant and ignorant narcissists, over and over again in human history. They read it in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. They read it in the Book of Kings, where you can find out all about Saddam Hussein, because the politics of the Middle East hasn’t changed much. They saw it in the Middle East of their day, which was full of clan tyrannies and immense cruelty. Arab slavers were still raiding Britain when the Founders proclaimed the Declaration of Independence.
They read it in Plutarch’s Lives of the Ceasars. They read it in the history of Athens, torn between bloody factions, and constantly raising new Obamas to power.
You see, all you Salonistas, the Founders were profoundly educated people. They were passionate believers in the Enlightenment. They understood the role of free speech, free thought, free political debate, and free trade. They saw the benefits of freedom in their own lives.
The Founders knew about slavery in the South, and they were deeply ashamed of it. But unlike contemporary liberals, who are massively ignorant of everything but their navels, they also knew that slavery was the norm in the British Royal Navy, for example, which recruited its sailors by force, using press gangs in London and other port cities. The British Navy also kidnapped American sailors.
The Royal Navy abolished the African slave trade. But common British sailors were whipped to work every day. They slept in 28 inches of space, almost as bad as African slaves, and were kept in bondage (deserters were hanged), and drug-addicted on daily grog and beer. The Founders knew about slavery in Biblical times, and among Russia’s serfs. They knew about slavery in France and the German states, where violence was used routinely to keep peasants tied to the land. The Founders also knew about the mental slavery that comes from indoctrination, which is why they loved liberty, including liberty of faith.
The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.)
America’s wars of liberation were real, not frauds like the Marxist ones. We brought liberty to Europe in World War I, in World War II, and in the Cold War. We brought liberty to American slaves in the Civil War. No other nation in history can claim anything close to that.
The Founders created the first land of liberty in human history. To be sure, they learned a great deal from British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke, and from the classical writers. They demanded for themselves the rights that were (theoretically) granted to Englishmen of their time. Meanwhile the French Revolution led to massive bloodshed and twenty years of bloody war to conquer Europe. Napoleon was another Obama idol.
Read your history, my friends. Real history, not the Leftist propaganda version.
America gave the first great opportunity in human history to start afresh. The Founders used that opportunity to create the greatest political foundation in history — because they understood that human nature hasn’t changed, and that there would be those (like Obama) who were so power-oriented that they would try to lord it over all Americans. The Constitution was carefully designed to stop and balance human power mongers, like Obama.  It has done so for two hundred years, and today it is the Marxist Left that is mounting a great assault on the US Constitution. But Marx never changed human nature.
The Left seems to believe that Karl Marx found a better way than the American Founders did. But look at the works of Marxism: The Soviets, Maoism, Pol Pot. One hundred million human beings killed by Marxist regimes in the 20th century alone. Look at North Korea, my sadly ignorant friends. Look at Robert Mugabe and his ilk. Look at the Nazis and their close affinity for Marxist totalitarians.
Karl Marx was just a throwback to all the slave-taking empires in history. Marx was born in Prussia, and idolized the chief propaganda philosopher of Prussia for his own “philosophy.” (That was Friedrich Hegel.) Marx wanted a militaristic state, run by an elite of Marx followers, who would indoctrinate all the workers to march in lockstep to the Central Commander. Is that what you want? It’s what Obama is creating for the United States today.
Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.
America never had a rock star president until the Obama campaign. George Washington made very sure no one would suspect him of being an Obama. Lincoln never claimed to be an Obama. None of our presidents have paraded themselves as Obamas — not until Obama came along and brought the psychology of self-glorifying narcissism to these shores. And the Left snapped to and saluted Obama, worshiped at his feet of clay in that ancient and corrupt way that humans have known for millenia.
Are rock stars your idea of an American president? If so, please go back to school and read a little history.
Russian president Medvedev said this last week – said it out loud, to the deaf, dumb and blind Leftists of the world:
“President Medvedev has issued a stinging repudiation of the Soviet Union, condemning it as a totalitarian state that had deprived Russians of their basic rights.  He also condemned Joseph Stalin’s record of repression before Victory Day celebrations on Sunday marking the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, an event that many elderly Russians attribute to the leadership of the Soviet dictator.
… “Stalin committed mass crimes against the people. And despite the fact that he worked a lot, despite the fact that under his leadership the country achieved successes, what was done to his own people cannot be forgiven.”…
Conservatives love the Founders because we read history. We know that you don’t read history. Obama doesn’t know history.
That’s why you liberals scare us.

Obama’s Tea Party Straw Man

Obama’s Tea Party Straw Man

By Sean Parr

Why does it seem that the public is being told that the only demand the Tea Party activists have is that their taxes be lowered? Though the activists would doubtless welcome such an outcome, it is by no means the sole impetus of their objections. In fact, the demand is explicitly absent from their “Contract from America.”

The contract — a written expression of the will of those like-minded Americans who would sign it — serves to convey to U.S. public officials a consensus outcry for a policy agenda of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
Interestingly, only two of the ten recommendations from the Tea Party’s contract involve the topic of taxation, and contrary to what the public has been presented from both the White House and the news media, each of these recommendations is devoid of any mention of protest in response to cripplingly high taxes. The movement’s members request, and the contract stipulates, that the U.S. government ought to:  
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and … permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.
It should be evident from this declaration that rather than concerning itself with tax rates, the Tea Party pines for the upheaval of the current tax code. The distinction is an important one, and the fact that it has not been recognized by the administration is seriously troubling.
This mischaracterization of the Tea Party’s view reigns broadly. We hear it, most conspicuously, from President Obama:
In all, we passed 25 different tax cuts last year. And one thing we haven’t done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year … so I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you.
The same straw man argument was presented last week by intellectual powerhouse Bill Maher. On his absurd cable television show (just before — in absolute defiance of history — he accused all staunch conservatives of being Ku Klux Klan members), Maher offered that the Tea Party people “were venting their anger, their rage, at taxes. Which of course, in most cases, for them went down.”
But if a brief look at the Tea Party contract could aptly elicit the truth of the matter — that tax rates are so obviously not the issue — then why the misunderstanding?
The answer is that there is no misunderstanding; we are witnessing a deliberate misclassification. The administration and the media are, at all times, intentionally misrepresenting the goals of their opponents.
Is it not reasonable to accept the sorry conclusion that those who pursue tangents rather than facts perhaps have as their aim diversion rather than solutions?
And if it is agreed that this administration’s most vocal and sincere conservative opposition is purposefully misidentified (though their goals have been expressly documented), then the question inescapably arises:
To what end?
It indeed seems the case that without first attempting to correctly identify a problem, the chances of encountering a solution grow increasingly slim. And because it seems to me impossible that such an uncomplicated concept could slip so effortlessly over the heads of our nation’s leaders and opinion-makers, I believe that there is something much more sinister at work
The public is being misinformed plainly because the Obama administration wishes to redirect the public away from a recognition and understanding of a political philosophy that desires to implement a redistributive social system.
In its call for individual liberty and economic freedom, the Tea Party expresses an understanding that the redistribution of wealth presently desired by Washington, the media, and liberals at large would be best guaranteed by the continuation of the current tax code — a tax code perceived by its critics as perpetuating a gross injustice by utilizing the coercive income tax to negotiate the satisfaction of ends to which those fleeced have not consented.
Ought an injustice be permitted to endure so long as some class or constituency benefit from its presence? Signers of the contract, liberty-oriented people from across the growingly constrained nation, all rightly reason, “No!”
There is a danger in the Obama White House honestly appraising the Tea Party’s criticisms: It may bring illumination to the consequences of their policies. And because, as poll after poll suggest, an enlightened citizenry would reject absolutely the continuation of said policies, such honesty would be politically suicidal.
Where the Tea Party openly provides its recommendations and cites its complaints, the Obama White House and its allies in the media take quite a separate approach. It is difficult to tell behind which goal they place the stronger thrust of their efforts: concealing their own agenda or wrongfully portraying the intentions of their critics.
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama sold a bill of goods (to those interested in his product): the possibility that this nation might finally be presented with the opportunity to rip through the ever-present and seemingly insurmountable partisan divide to achieve the Holy Grail of political discourse more commonly known as the civil debate of issues. However, now it is evident that he is actively pursuing an attitude of the very dissension which it was his stated goal to diminish.
Candidate Obama once said, “Let’s debate our genuine differences on the issues that matter.”
Hear, hear, Mr. President!
Hear, hear.

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

The Provocateur-in Chief

The Provocateur-in Chief

Neil Braithwaite

President Barrack Obama seems to relish making provocative statements and generally antagonizing his opposition. Whether it’s out of habit as a community organizer, or just a major character flaw, this president can’t seem to hold his tongue.The Provocateur-in Chief aimed his latest statement at the Tea Party movement, telling a group at a DNC fundraiser, “So I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you.”

With the economy in the tank, unemployment hovering at ten percent and over four million jobs lost since he was elected, one would think President Obama would have more important things to talk about than what his opposition says or does on a daily basis. In fact, most former presidents would rather focus on their job than be distracted by a daily war of words with their opposition. In an effort to stay above the fray and maintain their “presidential” status,” former presidents usually let their surrogates do political hand-to-hand combat.

But not President Obama. He could care less that his provocative statements might show him as unfocused or even un-presidential. In fact, the President’s provocative statements are a calculated political strategy intended to divert attention from his socialist agenda.

President Obama’s is just following Saul Alinsky’s methods from his book, “Rules For Radicals,” to change America into a socialist European-style socialist nation.

Excerpts from Alinsky’s book help illuminate, in part, President Obama’s propensity for making frequent provocative statements: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” These rules have worked for President Obama his entire political and community organizing career, and continue to work to advance his socialist agenda today.

Putting Alinsky’s methods into practice, President Obama will continue to say and do provocative things in order to identify the target so he can; ” freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Following the President’s lead, the liberal media will reinforce and defend any and all of his provocative statements. Once the opposition is identified, they will be branded as dangerous right-wing radicals and railed against, on a daily basis, by the liberal media until they are marginalized. This scenario has been playing out since before President Obama was elected, and will continue throughout his tenure in office.

Unless the Republicans can take back the House and Senate this November, President Obama, with the help of his willing accomplices in the liberal media, will lead America slowly and methodically into socialism. Like a frog in a pot of cold water, gradual warming will result in the frog being boiled without making any effort to escape.

Feel free, fellow Americans – while you still are – to investigate the facts regarding President Obama’s radical strategies and socialist agenda.

When these facts become clear, read the following words from the “Declaration of Independence,” and see what “we the people” have a “right” to do when “any form of government becomes destructive.”

“…that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Exposing President Obama’s socialist agenda, and getting enough people to declare their independence from it, may be the only way to keep America’s melting pot from boiling.

Neil Braithwaite writes political commentary and satire and is a regular contributor to PoliticalDerby.com.

Go AHEAD punks, make our day!

Go AHEAD punks, make our day!

Who let the dorks out?

Jason Levin, creator of crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15—tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes…

Levin says they want to exaggerate the group’s least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them.

“Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not,” Levin said. “Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely.”

Go ahead punks, make our day! Cameras will be rolling; police will be standing by.

More
Left Coast Rebel: Exposed…The Individuals Behind “Crash the Tea Party
Crash course: Your illustrated guide to the Tea Party saboteurs
I will keep harping on this until the end of time: a camera is an indispensable tool for these things.
Check this out from Ruby Slippers: 58% Support Repeal of ObamaCare – We need to make that happen!
Chief Tea Party Crasher is a 9-11 Truther.

White House To Tea Parties: It’s Bush’s Fault

White House To Tea Parties: It’s Bush’s Fault

April 19th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

UT0090183

Fox News:

Tea Partiers, the Obama administration is on your side.

That’s been the message from the White House over the past few days, as top officials dispute charges that Washington is on a spending binge and encourage conservative protesters to count their blessings.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, when asked about the Tea Party protests, said in an interview Sunday that the Obama administration is paying more attention to deficit and spending concerns than the Bush administration did.

“We’ve just been through eight years where many people said deficits don’t matter. We can pass huge tax cuts, pass huge new programs without paying for them. That debate has changed fundamentally,” Geithner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“You don’t hear people say anymore deficits don’t matter. You don’t hear people saying we can pass enormous expansions in government without paying for it. That’s an important change.”

And President Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Thursday that Tea Party activists should “be saying thank you” to him for the tax cuts passed by his administration.

The change in tone comes as surveys show distrust in the government is rising to historic levels. A Pew Research Center survey released on Monday found almost 80 percent of Americans say they don’t trust Washington.

Dana Perino, former White House press secretary under the Bush administration and a Fox News contributor, said that the Obama administration is wise to try to appeal to the Tea Partiers. But she said the claim that Obama is tackling the deficit is off base.

“He’s right, in one sense, to finally stop degrading people who affiliate with the Tea Party movement. But if his policies meshed up with his rhetoric, it would probably be a stronger sell point,” Perino said.

Obama has established a bipartisan commission to study ways to bring down the national debt and rein in deficits. But his spending has far outpaced that of his predecessor.

President Bush ran up a $458.6 billion deficit during his last full year in office. Obama ran up a $1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal 2009 — that covered part of Bush’s final year, but budget projections show deficits will continue to top $1 trillion for several years under Obama.

Obama and Democrats lose the trust of the American People

Obama and Democrats lose the trust of the American People

April 20th, 2010

AP

 4 out of 5 people distrust the national government

America’s “Great Compromiser” Henry Clay called government “the great trust,” but most Americans today have little faith in Washington’s ability to deal with the nation’s problems.

Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don’t trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America’s ills, the survey found.

The survey illustrates the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall’s elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.

The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively affects their daily lives, a sentiment that’s grown over the past dozen years.

This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.

Read More:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers