Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Man collapses with ruptured appendix... three weeks after NHS doctors 'took it out' !

Is this kind of 'healthcare' in our future?

What would happen if this man were living in America under Obama's healthcare plan?
Could he sue the government?

What do YOU think???

Man collapses with ruptured appendix...
three weeks after NHS doctors 'took it out'!

By Daniel Bates

After weeks of excruciating pain, Mark Wattson was understandably relieved to have his appendix taken out.

Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home.

But only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance.

To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially fatal complication.

In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first procedure.

The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where he worked did not believe his story and sacked him.

Mr Wattson told of the moment he realised there had been a serious mistake.

'I was lying on a stretcher in terrible pain and a doctor came up to me and said that my appendix had burst,' he said.

'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I told these people I had my appendix out just four weeks earlier but there it was on the scanner screen for all to see.

'I thought, "What the hell did they slice me open for in the first place?"

'I feel that if the surgery had been done correctly in the first place I wouldn't be in the mess I am today. I'm disgusted by the whole experience.'

Mr Wattson first went under the knife on July 7 after experiencing severe abdominal pain for several weeks. He was discharged but exactly a month later he had to dial 999 after collapsing in agony.

Following the second operation his incision became infected and he was admitted to hospital for a third time for treatment.

He said: 'I had a temporary job at a sports shop but when I took in two medical certificates saying I had my appendix out twice they didn't believe me.

'Now I'm helpless. I can't go out and find a job, I can't go to interviews, I can barely walk and am in constant pain. Before the first operation they told me I had to have my appendix removed and when I woke up afterwards they said it had been a complete success.

'But then I keeled over in agony one month later and when they did some tests at the hospital we could see the appendix was still there on the scans.

'As far as I was aware they took my appendix out and no one told me any different.

'I have no idea what they did take out, but I want to find out what went wrong.'

A spokesman for Great Western Hospital confirmed that a representative had met Mr Wattson and that an investigation had been started.

He was unable to confirm what, if anything, was removed in the first operation.

Paul Gearing, deputy general manager for general surgery at Great Western Hospital NHS Trust, said: 'We are unable to comment on individual cases.

'However, we would like to apologise if Mr Wattson felt dissatisfied with the care he received at Great Western Hospital.'

- Compensation payments to NHS patients have risen by 20 per cent in the past year to a record high of £769million. At this rate more than £2million a day is being paid over claims against the Health Service.

Sportsman Groups Push for Sunstein Defeat

Editor's Note: Yesterday, fourteen outdoor groups sent a letter asking that the United States Senate block the nomination of Cass R. Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Today, an explanation of that opposition as written by Greg R. Lawson, Director of Communications for the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance.

Sportsmen Need to "Man the Battle Stations" and Block the "Czar"

Battle lines between sportsmen and anti-hunting extremists seem to be hardening with each passing day. Frighteningly, it looks to get worse as a major anti-hunter is on the verge of setting up residence in a federal office with the power to block pro-sportsmen regulations for years to come.

Cass R. Sunstein may not be a household name, but make no mistake, in academic and legal circles he is a rock star. His nomination by President Obama to serve as the head of the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), otherwise known as the "Regulatory Czar", appears on track and has received a lot of accolades from those who make a living inside "the Beltway" of Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, Sunstein's record outs him as a rabid animal rightist who has gone so far as to state that animals may deserve the right to sue and, for sportsmen, most chillingly, that "we might ban hunting altogether, at least if it's sole purpose is human recreation."

While these views may set the hearts of Ivory Towered intellectuals, government bureaucrats, and folks like PETA aflutter; in the real world, they are just plain absurd. However, the very fact that the U.S. Senate is probably going to vote to confirm this person to a post overseeing all federal regulations including those concerning hunting, fishing, and trapping should raise more than a casual shrug. It should raise serious "red flag" by America's sportsmen.

After all, America's sportsmen are the nation's number one conservationists. Yet now, these true conservationists may have to battle an unelected force in order to continue to defend their time honored traditions. Simply put, this is wrong.

The Obama administration is already crowded with people who hold similar viewpoints as Sunstein. It is common knowledge that Attorney General Eric Holder is a champion for gun control. Also with sordid conservation pasts are Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack who vetoed a bill to allow dove hunting when governor of Iowa and Lisa Jackson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, who worked overtime as a New Jersey bureaucrat to stop bear hunting in the state.

And we may soon be adding Cass Sunstein's name to the list of people whose views are well outside the real mainstream of America. It would be tragic to allow these views to be imposed without a fight.

To that end, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance has been leading just such a fight to block this nomination and worked with several US senators to stop the nomination from moving forward. Unfortunately, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D- NV), is bound and determined to have a vote when the Senate reconvenes after Labor Day.

This means that the clock is ticking. Sportsmen need to "take up their arms" and, using their voices, work hand in hand to block this "Czar." Sportsmen should call both of their U.S. Senators today and express outrage that a man who has explicitly pushed radical animal rights views might be given the power to impose these views on all of us and destroy our collective heritage.

-- Greg R. Lawson

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

ObamaCare: McCain To The Rescue?

From Investor's Business Daily

McCain To Rescue Of ObamaCare?

Health Care: "First, do no harm" is never the maxim of Washington politicians. With a public uprising killing ObamaCare, Sen. John McCain wants "to sit down with the president" and resuscitate it.

At a town hall in Sun City, Ariz., on Tuesday, the defeated Republican presidential nominee displayed a chart featuring some good health care reform ideas. They included tort reform to reduce the $200 billion a year added to health costs thanks to medical malpractice awards; a sizable tax credit to pay for insurance; and allowing Americans to cross state lines to purchase the health insurance of their choice.

There seems to be a disconnect in McCain's head, however, between getting good reforms and what he knows the Democrats will do as the majority. McCain described himself as "very worried" about and "unalterably opposed" to using budget reconciliation rules to ram through reform. Such a ploy would take away Republican senators' right to filibuster.

McCain said he watched "every single meaningful" Republican amendment turned down by the Democrats in committee mark-up. He recited the Mayo Clinic's remarks opposing ObamaCare, making it obvious that the administration was misleading Americans into thinking that esteemed institution had endorsed liberal Democrats' radical approach.

So the senator knows that his Democratic colleagues always play dirty. Yet he told his skeptical audience of seniors that "to do nothing is not the answer either." Two days earlier, on ABC's "This Week," this was Sen. McCain's response to President Obama's accusations that the GOP preferred gridlock:

"I look at this as an opportunity right now . . . . Now, wouldn't it be a good idea for us Republicans and Democrats to sit down with the president? . . . There's so many areas that we are in agreement on."

The answer to that question is "No." McCain may insist that "one of the fundamentals for any agreement would be that the president abandon the government option," but things may not work out that way in a final package. McCain is echoing the president's erroneous contention that a radical transformation of the greatest health care system in the world is preferable to "gridlock."

But accepting the status quo, as the president disparagingly likes to put it, is far preferable to the health care revolution he and Democratic congressional leaders are hoping for this year.

Does Sen. McCain really think that with the Democrats enjoying a comfortable majority in both houses of Congress he can get the kind of freedom-oriented medical reforms that Republicans propose?

The American people, already spooked at this year's government spending spree, are rightly scared to death at the costs of Obama-Care — another matter on which the administration has been deceptive. Tuesday, new numbers showed that the federal budget deficit will be far higher than expected — nearly $1.6 trillion for the year, amounting to more debt than since the aftermath of World War II.

After a $787 billion politicized stimulus package, and unemployment still headed to double digits, the people are letting their representatives know in person that enough is enough. And their voices are being heard. Even liberal Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a strong proponent of government-managed reform, pronounced Obama-Care dead for the year before a large Wisconsin crowd last week.

"Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens," said Feingold. "The divisions are so deep," he added, and he has "never seen anything like that."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent who is moderate-to-conservative on national security, but liberal on almost all else, told CNN last weekend it would be "a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform" at a time when "the public is either opposed to or of very, very passionate mixed minds about" it.

Key Democrats now admit that a popular uprising has succeeded in derailing the radical health care revolution that Democrats have in mind. Even left-wing politicians now see that Americans prefer standing pat to socialism. Why does Sen. McCain want to get us back on such a dangerous track?




He is not a Republican!

McCain MUST GO!!!

Monday, August 24, 2009

Busy Weekend...

From The Outdoor Wire
Busy Weekend
Machinists Union members in Fond du Lack, Wisconsin have voted "overwhelmingly" to reject Mercury Marine's latest wage and employment offer. Mercury, reeling from two years of tough industry times, has already cut operations across all their manufacturing by fifty percent, and says the latest round of wage concessions was their last attempt to keep their facilities in Fond du Lack. Instead, officials said after the vote yesterday they would immediately start their relocation to MerCruiser manufacturing facilities in Stillwater, Oklahoma.

The Stillwater facility is non-union.

"This has been a very difficult and stressful process for all involved," Mark Schwabero, president of Mercury Marine, said in a statement. "We will work closely with our team in Fond du Lac to develop and communicate a transition plan for this 24-36 month process."

Meanwhile, officials in Fond du Lack and the state capitol are encouraging Mercury and the union to come back to the bargaining table. Governor Jim Doyle says he's hopeful, but Mercury says their final offer is, indeed, their final offer.

There are between 1,900 and 2,000 people working for Mercury in the manufacturing and corporate headquarters in Fond du Lack. The company has been headquartered in the area for seven decades.

Should the company relocate both the 850 manufacturing and 1,100 corporate positions, the local economic development corporation says the impact would be more than $350-million annually, with as many as an additional 5,900 jobs lost because of the impact on suppliers, government and area businesses.

Meanwhile, the union says the concessions, which included wage freezes for the next seven years and reduced insurance and retirement benefits for current workers, and would mean a wage reduction of nearly thirty percent for new or recalled workers made retirement "unaffordable".


Meanwhile, Seattle gun owners are saying they delivered a clear message to whomever will be their next mayor: don't mess with firearms rights. The message was delivered by the defeat of two-term incumbent Seattle mayor Greg Nickles. Nickles finished third in a "best two" primary election, meaning he has no chance at returning for a third term.

Nickles has been firmly anti-firearms, and irked all gun owners when he announced he would ban legally-carried firearms from city property. That would have defied Washington's preemption statute, forbidding local laws to preempt a state statute.

Rather than go to court on the position, Nickles instead included gun prohibitions in use contracts for the Seattle City Center and other venues.

Nickles said in his concession speech that he'd gotten the message that Seattle voters wanted to head "in a new direction."


In Arizona, genuine concern that a growing mountain lion population is hammering attempts to restore the Kofa bighorn sheep herds. New research presented to the Arizona Game and Fish Department showed that a single mountain lion was averaging killing one bighorn sheep every ten days.

By comparison, the annual recruitment of Kofa bighorns from the National Wildlife Refuge herd is only thirty-nine animals.

Biologists the predation is an even larger problem than water availability, disease and human disturbance.

The Kofa bighorn sheep herd was once one of the nation's most robust. Surveys estimated the populations at 600-800 animals prior to 2006. That year's survey showed a historic low of only 391 animals. The latest surveys showed an estimated 460 in 2007 and 436 in 2008.

A new survey is scheduled for October.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Is Obama creating a civil war in America?

By Jennifer Harper


A Hollywood conservative has headed East.

It's "Freedom Concert" time for Jon Voight.

The Academy Award winner will join Sean Hannity in Cincinnati and Atlanta this weekend to honor fallen soldiers and present college scholarships to surviving children. Mr. Voight -- a warrior himself in many ways -- has been cogitating about the state of America, meanwhile.

"There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.

"We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation."

Be outraged, Mr. Voight advises.

"Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky. Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods," he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform."

Right on Jon!

Saturday, August 15, 2009

A Fundamental Disconnect

From American Thinker...

A Fundamental Disconnect
By Ron Lipsman

Hollywood and the media routinely offer up two standard portrayals of government officials -- inept and comical idiots or sinister characters. The latter is especially true of media depictions of NSA, CIA, and FBI employees, but both are quite typical of the reigning liberal elite's opinion of all government agencies and their employees: bureaucrats are either hilarious nincompoops or dangerous evil-doers, and amazingly enough, sometimes both at once.

Hollywood seems to think that the government is either screwing up the country because it doesn't know what it is doing or it is destroying the country because it is trampling on the rights of its citizens.

However, the people who hold these convictions are the exact same people who want to turn over the operation of all the key components of the country to the government to manage. Health care, energy, education, the economy itself -- these and dozens of other critical features of American society should be directed, according to the Left, from the hallowed halls in which the bumblers and betrayers work.

These liberal elites, who are now in positions of great power in the nation, seem to believe that the politicians and bureaucrats who populate the federal government, are on the one hand part fumbling meatheads who can't tie their shoes and part evil plotters who want to screw John Q. Public. At the same time the left believes that those who run the bureaucracy should be entrusted with the management of virtually every aspect of American society.

Is there not a fundamental disconnect here?
What could possibly explain this self-contradictory faith in the power of the government to successfully solve the nation's problems? I will offer three explanations and then speculate as to which applies to the celebrity who now occupies the White House.

The first explanation is ignorance.

The people of our nation have been subjected to an intense liberal indoctrination for so long that there are a huge number of them for whom the tenets of liberalism are so deeply ingrained that they accept without question the proposition that the government must address any problem that arises anywhere in America.

Under a relentless assault from the liberal dominated media, educational establishment, legal profession, arts community, foundations, and even segments of the business and religious communities, many have succumbed to the brainwashing.

Consequently, they believe:

•FDR's New Deal saved us from the Depression rather than prolonged it;

•The Great Society helped to lift minorities out of poverty, rather than institutionalizing it;

•Capitalism creates unjust, inequitable outcomes in the US, ignoring the fact that it has powered our economy to unimagined and unequaled heights of prosperity;

•Government creates jobs by spending the tax payer's money, rather than preventing their creation because of the tax dollars pilfered from entrepreneurs;

•Government regulations improve the functioning of our economy, revealing obliviousness to the enormous drag they impose;

•The rich don't pay their fair share, whereas in fact the "rich" pay the overwhelming majority of the income tax that Uncle Sam extracts, while the lowest 40% of income earners pay virtually nothing;

•The Constitution is a malleable document that serves as a guide to the making of law -- in fact, it is a binding document that can be changed only by a demanding Amendment process and the American republic has survived and prospered precisely because continuing generations have agreed to abide by the deal struck by our founders with the people;

•Radical change not adherence to tradition, is the American way.

I venture that a large proportion, perhaps a substantial majority of the folks who voted for Obama fit into this category -- especially young people.

It is legitimate to ask how such hoodwinked people can accept the portrayal of the government as bumbling or sinister or both -- laugh at it if it is the former, be mortified by it if the latter -- and why does it not occur to them that it is lunacy to entrust their welfare to the bumblers and evil-doers?

I think the answer is to be found in the attitude teenagers exhibit toward their parents and teachers. The kids often see their elders as at best hopelessly square, out of it and even stupid and at worst as manipulating, tyrannical, and unfair.

Most -- not all -- do not question the fundamental authority of their parents and teachers.

The kids expect the adults to remove the obstacles that the youngsters encounter and the kids are willing to put up with the rules laid down by the adults because it is expected of them, because it is the natural order of things, and besides there is no choice.

So too does the juvenile mass of brainwashed citizens view the authority of the federal government. They deride and lambaste it for its incompetence; they fear it for its omnipotence; but they accept unquestioningly its "legitimate" authority to control their lives.

The next explanation might be characterized as arrogance.

Its practitioners understand that the government doesn't have a particularly good track record of solving the nation's problems. They recognize that previous government forays into health care, agriculture, housing, etc. have resulted in mismanagement, excessive waste, deleterious effects on the economy, fraud, and corruption.

Nevertheless, they believe that the federal government is the correct mechanism to address the nation's problems and under their tutelage one (or both) of two things will happen.

First, they will do it better. They will bring better design, planning, execution, and supervision. Or, it won't work any better, but they will profit personally from the results. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is chock full, from top to bottom, with these types -- the naive ones who think they will execute the liberal agenda more perfectly and the corrupt ones who intend to profit from the agenda, however it is implemented.

The third explanation is malevolence.

This characterization applies to the hard core leftists who believe the classic American political, economic and cultural systems are rotten and must be overthrown. I am thinking of revolutionaries like Saul Alinsky, George Soros, Michael Moore, and, yes, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

They don't care that the government to which they wish to assign more and more responsibility is a combination of ineptness and corruption. So much the better; it will bring the system down more quickly.

Radicals like these thrive on a crisis atmosphere (as admitted by Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel). They seek to create a perpetual crisis, which leaves the people panic-stricken and easily manipulated by those who, under the guise of addressing the dangerous ills they have identified, will divert more power to the government, and who are in fact at work destroying the system under the false cover of crises like climate change and health care.

If they can enact universal, federally-controlled health care and the business-crippling cap and trade bill, their malevolent objective might be attained -- America could be so fundamentally changed that there will be no hope of returning to republican principles.

I believe the vast majority of Americans on the left fit into category 1, a substantial number fall under 2 and a small, but dedicated cadre occupies the third position. Into which category does the guy in the White House fit?

Like most of America, my acquaintance with President Obama is recent and superficial. That he occupies the White House is a testament to the uncharacteristic recklessness of the American people, who have installed therein a person they know precious little about. Is he the leftist radical his voting record suggests or the relatively moderate politician he seemed to be during the campaign? Everyone who interacts with him insists he is very smart. If so, it is impossible that the rationale for his leftist mentality lies in the first explanation: ignorance.

Throughout the campaign, my impression was that he was a number 2: arrogant. Yes, there was no denying his far-left voting record -- but he tacked right during the election and then he appointed a number of relatively moderate cabinet officials (to go along with the hard core leftists he selected as advisors and czars, to be sure).

But since the inauguration, the gloves are off and the trend is clear. President Obama is a leader of the malevolent, revolutionary forces in America who want to overthrow the system and replace it with a Euro-socialist, nanny State that repudiates much of American history, including the Constitution.

What is the evidence? Many of his opponents would cite: his promotion of cap and trade, which surely would cripple our economy; his drive for universal, government-controlled health insurance, which would make virtually all of us wards of the State; his foreign policy of appeasement and repeated apologies for American behavior; or his reckless spending, borrowing and taxing that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren.

For me it is as simple as this. I see no evidence that he loves America, that he (or his wife) takes any pride in the achievements of our country, that he subscribes to the idea that America, unlike any other nation, is founded on a political idea and is called to be a beacon of freedom to mankind.

That is not Barack Obama's America. His new America will be a bizarre combination of France, the Soviet Union and Canada.

Man - I sure wish I could write like that!
Nicely put Mr Lipsman!

Friday, August 14, 2009

Pelosi: "I'm a Fan of Disruptors!"

Nazis for Me, but Not for Thee

From National Review Online...

Nazis for Me, but Not for Thee
Why shouldn’t socialized medicine prompt comparisons to National Socialism?
By Andrew McCarthy

It’s this week’s fashion on the left, and among such fashionably contemplative moderates as Mort Kondracke, to blast Rush Limbaugh for comparing Democrats to the Nazis.

It’s no surprise that the Obama hardcores are misrepresenting the sequence and substance of events, but I would have hoped that Kondracke would at least have noted that Rush’s comparison — even if Kondracke thought it unwise — was neither gratuitous nor demagogic.

To recap, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, started this episode by comparing American citizens who oppose Obamacare to the Nazis and asserting that her political opponents were donning “swastikas.” -
(Sen. Barbara Boxer simultaneously ripped Obamacare dissenters for their Brooks Brothers suits — it’s not altogether clear where on the twill the swastika goes.)

Pelosi’s tactic was the shopworn smear we on the right have dealt with for six decades. There is no conceivable substantive connection between opposition to Obamacare and German National Socialism — they are antithetical. By invoking the Nazis, Pelosi was patently slandering dissenters as racist thugs.

Rush responded, and the response did not smear Democrats.

He repeatedly and explicitly qualified that no one was saying Obama was Hitler, that Pelosi was Goebbels, or that the Democrats were engaged in the genocidal barbarity of the Third Reich.

The comparison he drew was a substantive one: between the Democrats’ proposal for socialized medicine and the German installation of socialized medicine beginning with Bismarck and reaching its shocking apotheosis with Hitler’s National Socialism. (A transcript of what he actually contended is
here, and his website has other relevant transcripts, since the argument was reiterated other times during the week.)

The point was to show that if Pelosi wanted to engage in Nazi comparisons, the health-care policies of Nazi Germany had far more in common with the health-care policies of the Democrats than with those of the conservative opposition, which wants health care kept private and reforms to be market-based.

Whether you agree with that or not (I happen to think it’s undeniable), Rush was also making a larger point that is not only fair argument but essential argument.

There is a trajectory of socialism, regardless of the good intentions of many socialists.

As he framed it, you take things such as health care, things that are traditionally understood as within the ambit of individual liberty and free choice; you move such things into the ambit of state responsibility as the welfare state emerges and grows, on the theory that it is government’s responsibility to provide for everyone’s needs (by redistributing resources); as more things are moved from private to public control, the state by definition becomes totalitarian; and, inexorably, the totalitarian state gets bad leaders and the society comes to reflect the policy choices of those leaders.

Now, we can argue until the end of time about whether that trajectory really exists and whether it is inevitable. But however you come out, it is an argument very much worth having. It goes to what kind of society we are going to be, to what the proper relationship between the citizen and the state is.

Nazi Germany is a useful historical example of socialism run amok. The genocide and terrorism ultimately practiced by the Nazis were horrible — that goes without saying.

But National Socialism went on for a dozen years, it was the last stage in a progressive nationalization of German society, and there was a lot more to it than genocide and terrorism. It cannot be that because there was genocide and terrorism, the socialist aspects of National Socialism are outside the lines of acceptable political discourse.

Given the immense popularity of Jonah Goldberg’s
Liberal Fascism, one of the most important political books of the last quarter-century, it doesn’t look like Americans are as convinced as Mort Kondracke seems to be that these comparisons are verboten.

Let’s put aside the Left’s propensity to slander conservatives with comparisons to Adolf Hitler, who was patently a man of the Left.

Earlier this year, one New York Times
writer seemed to find comparisons to National Socialism quite worthy when — at least in the telling — those comparisons worked in the Left’s favor.

While Americans were hotly debating the merits of the
Obama “stimulus” in April, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto called attention to a very interesting economic analysis offered by David Leonhardt. Leonhardt wrote:

In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.

More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t look kindly on collective bargaining.

But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries.
Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn’t become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.

After all due qualifiers about how terribly uncomfortable he felt about invoking lessons from the Nazis, Leonhardt somehow summoned the inner fortitude to make the obvious explicit:

Here in the United States, many people are understandably wondering whether the $800 billion stimulus program will make much of a difference. They want to know: Does stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that’s been answered pretty clearly in the last century. Yes, stimulus works.

As Taranto correctly observed, whatever you may think of the merits of Leonhardt’s argument, it was appropriate for him to make it: The wisdom vel non of policies adopted during over a decade of Nazi socialism cannot be off the table simply because, in the end, the Nazis were monsters.

We may find the seeds of their monstrousness in those policies, or we may not. But the thought that we should not talk about them is absurd. Notably, Leonhardt’s piece ran without any teeth-gnashing from Mort Kondracke and our other Beltway chaperone's.

National Socialism is banned from the Right’s case against socialism, but is somehow acceptable when leftists use it as a smear or when the Left’s nuanced geniuses, after their very thoughtful consideration, decide its invocation is suitable for mature audiences?

I don’t think so.

Neither do I Andrew..
The liberal left will always use whatever tactic they can find to smear, besmirch and defame anybody that disagrees with their views. It REALLY IS a mental disorder, you know... Liberalism...


You Might Be a Birther if...

From American Thinker
By Kyle-Ann Shiver

Please call me skeptical. It's a label I proudly wear. Since my first day of second grade, when I traded my homemade chocolate-chip cookies for a smooth-talking fourth-grader's out-of-ink ballpoint pen, I've been a wary consumer.

So, if a presidential candidate tries to hand me a barebones certificate of live birth in lieu of a valid, long-form birth certificate, my skeptical antennae go on alert.

I automatically question his motives and whether or not he may be trying to play a little fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution. When that same president purportedly spends over a million dollars on legal fees, merely to keep a simple document sealed, then I'm starting to become curiouser and curiouser.

All in all, though, I might be able to get past the whole long-form birth certificate issue if this president had released the whole host of other life documentation, generally required for high-level job applications.

To whit, what is in the following documents that might diminish the Obama "narrative," as sold to the public by marketing guru, David Axelrod, and a strangely incurious media?

  • Panahou Academy school records, 5th through 12th grades
  • Occidental College records, including financial aid information.
  • Columbia University records, including the missing senior thesis and financial aid information.
  • Harvard University records, including information on how a student who never wrote anything (that can be found) was elected president of the prestigious law review, and including information on how Harvard Law School was afforded by humble community agitator, Barack Obama.
  • Obama's Illinois state senate records and papers, mysteriously lost.

No man or woman in this Country today could successfully apply for a high-level executive position with any corporation without submitting this meager documentation to prove the statements made in a job application.

No president in the past 30 years has been permitted this level of secrecy about his life. Yet, today we have a sitting president who has provided none of it. In lieu of actual documents, the American public has a "narrative" created by PR guru, turned political operative, David Axelrod.

It is this veritable information vacuum that feeds the birth certificate inquiries.

This ain't rocket science. It ain't even first-year-law-school tough.

If there is a simple legal issue at stake, and the defendant has the incontrovertible proof that would settle the issue, then all the plaintiff need do is produce the proof in court or in public. Case closed. Issue settled.

Go back to sleep now, boys and girls.

Unfortunately, President Obama and his insolent, adolescent press secretary, Bobby Gibbs, have decided to play dodgeball with the birth-certificate issue. Rather than just - quite simply -- provide the detailed birth certificate, signed by the attending physician, issued by the hospital where the birth occurred, Bobby and Barry have chosen to mock those asking for the proof.

When asked in July why this issue continues to simmer and raise its ugly head again and again, Bobby Gibbs offered this, now quite-trite response: "For $15 anyone can buy an internet address and say anything they want," calling the whole birth certificate brouhaha "made-up, fictional nonsense."

Why those silly, silly Birthers. Thinking that a president might try to bamboozle the American public! Has anything ever seemed so foolish, so imbecilic, so deranged!

Let me see, now. Have I ever been bamboozled by an American president?

LBJ: "I will never send American boys to fight in Vietnam."

Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook."

Bill Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

So, with all my little heart and soul, I want to believe both Barry and Bobby, but I'm still wanting the actual proof. And contrary to all protestations to the contrary, the current president's valid, long-form birth certificate, with all the pertinent details of his birth and legal signatures, has not been released by the state of Hawaii because permission to release it has - as of this very minute - not been granted by Barack Hussein Obama.

For all of us common citizens, who well remember having been bamboozled by former presidents, I've compiled a short list of what it takes to make one a Birther. You might want to see if your own skepticism warrants your inclusion in this growing number of "conspiracy nuts."

You might be a Birther if...you believe that the U.S. Constitution is still relevant. Most lawyers I know are quite the sticklers for legalese and detail. There is a simple, plainly-worded clause in the U.S. Constitution regarding the qualifications for the office of the presidency.

Article 2; Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

A fourth-grader could understand this. Surely anyone, who wants to be president, and who is himself a lawyer, could read it and know what it means.

However, I'm inclined at this point, to question whether this president is a stickler for detail. Any lawyer, who goes on record surmising that police officers "acted stupidly," when he knows only scant details of an arrest incident, and openly admits that the person arrested is a personal friend, and that the details he knows came from his friend, is not like any lawyer I know. In fact, since Barack Obama assumed the presidency, he has shown over and over and over again an alarming disregard for the truth, especially in the details.

If you agree, then you might actually be a Birther.

You might be a Birther if...you ascribe to the rule of law. The law is the law. You can go through proper channels to change it, but if you respect the rule of law, you accept it, abide by it and until it is legally changed, you do not attempt to dodge it. The president is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America. When a president - any president - abridges the Constitution, even in the minutest of ways, it is a most egregious matter.

Our founders were quite intellectual men of reason, and possessed of uncommon foresight. They recognized that they were forming an imperfect union and knew that changes would be necessary with the passage of time. To this end, they established a formal process for amending our Constitution to meet the needs of a changing America. The process is necessarily cumbersome and difficult, requiring a great deal of public support.

Many now believe that the "natural-born citizen" clause is outdated and meaningless. Fine. All these folks need do is begin the process of passing a formal Constitutional Amendment, which would change the rule of law by which we choose our presidents. Until then, the rule of law is as stated in Article 2, Section 1.

You might actually be a Birther if you believe in the rule of law.

You might be a Birther if...you now have a feeling in your gut that the narrative used to elect a president was a bit off the mark in substantive ways. You may have been a moderate, who bought candidate Obama's conciliatory voice of moderation and intelligence, as eloquently displayed again and again on the campaign trail. But now that you've witnessed one leftist power play after another coming from the President, you're thinking you may have been misled. At the very least, you may be a Birther if you simply would like the president, who promised you transparency, to actually deliver a modicum of the stuff.

As for me, I'm no wacko. Nor am I believing much of anything this president says now, because he's been caught in so many exaggerations, so many outright lies, so many contortions of the truth, that anyone still trusting him on even small matters, might lack a decent amount of common sense.

The American system of government was designed upon an open acknowledgement of the unsavory elements of human nature. Our system is designed to be skeptical and demand proof.

To those who now calculate the political ramifications of making this simple request for records, I'm prone to ask myself when good old American civics died. There is nothing whatsoever political involved in this, except what the President, his own press secretary and leftist media hounds have made of it themselves. Have we all become nothing higher on the citizen scale than political operatives, gauging our words in accord with what effect they may have upon an electoral contest in the future? If so, we may be accomplices in the murder of American civics, plain and simple.

At this juncture, every single American of every political stripe might want to claim the title, "Birther." It is, after all, as American as apple pie to simply and politely say, "Show me."

Monday, August 10, 2009

Obama Documents? - USJF

From an email from Human Events:

Dear Concerned Friend,

Ghandi once said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

In recent weeks, the liberal media, especially Chris Matthews of Hard Ball and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, have gone to great lengths to attack and ridicule those who question whether Barack Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Recently, a liberal columnist raised the interesting question of why are these "attack dogs" so viciously going after any of those who would raise such a question. The columnist pointed out that this issue was hardly touched at all by the media during the 2008 election, despite the fact that it was brought up by then Senator Hillary Clinton and despite the lawsuit filed by Democrat activist Phil Berg on the subject. So his question was, "why now?"

In my opinion, the simple reason is that the question as to whether Mr. Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States has become a national issue--as a result of efforts by the United States Justice Foundation and by WorldNetDaily.

According to recent polls, over half of the public in the United States are aware of this issue, and over forty percent want the matter resolved. As a result, these "attack dogs" have gone on the attack and are hoping to discredit, demoralize, or destroy anyone who dares raise the question.

Case in point: the recent attacks on Lou Dobbs.
Lou Dobbs has stated that he does NOT believe the claims that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.

However, he HAS questioned why Mr. Obama has not made public his actual birth certificate. He has also had guests on his show who question the eligibility of Mr. Obama to serve as President. However, the "attack dogs" in the media, and radical groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, will not tolerate ANY free speech on this issue.

Anyone who questions the eligibility of Mr. Obama to be President, even in an innocent way of suggesting that he produce his actual birth certificate to resolve the issue, is immediately -- and viciously -- attacked. These "attack dogs," even including the superiors of Mr. Dobbs at CNN, will tolerate no contradiction to their views.

CNN even went to the bizarre extent of claiming that Mr. Obama's actual birth certificate was destroyed in 2001, thus, essentially, calling Hawaii State Officials -- who claim to have seen it -- liars. The extent to which these "attack dogs" will go knows no bounds!

But I can promise you this: We will NOT be bullied into stopping our quest for the TRUTH -- but we need YOUR help to keep going!

Recently, I was invited to be the guest on a radio program. I was told that I would be treated in a professional manner. When I got on the show, the host started off by reading what appeared to be a racist rant from some purported Republican Party official and then, without giving me a chance to comment, asked me a question having nothing to do with the rant against Mr. Obama.

This is just the typical thing that liberal journalists do, making a series of derogatory comments leading into an interview with a guest, implying that the guest somehow is supportive of or involved with such comments, and then try to divert the guest away from that subject so that they do not respond. Fortunately, I did respond and I said that anyone who made such racist comments should be removed from any position that they had with the Republican Party.

And then I pointed out that such comments and such beliefs had nothing to do with the litigation that I am personally handling concerning the Obama eligibility issue.

As everyone should know, my client in that litigation (Former Ambassador Alan Keyes) is African American, and he is not a member of the Republican Party.

However, the truth has little to do with what the "attack dogs" want to promote. They don't care about the truth. They don't care about the damage that such attacks on free speech do to the nation. They don't care about the damage being done to our Constitution if Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.

All Mr. Obama has to do is produce his actual birth certificate and allow it to be examined by experts. Until he does that, this question will NOT be resolved, no matter how much the "attack dogs" go after anyone who DARES to raise this issue.

I, for one, and the United States Justice Foundation, will NOT be intimidated, coerced, or harassed into silence. We intend to FIGHT this battle until either Mr. Obama proves that he satisfies all of the requirements to serve as President of the United States, or until he is out of office if he is not so qualified.

First, they ignored us... then, they ridiculed us... now, they're fighting us.

Last November, people said that we were crazy to pursue this issue. Now, we've been shown to be right in our pursuit of the truth. You see, it's not just the original birth certificate that they're refusing to release.

Barack Obama, according to a published report, has spent over one million dollars so far to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents, such as:
- His actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted as proof of birth by the State of Hawaii)
- His passport files
- His University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
- His Harvard Law School records
- His Columbia University records
- His Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"
- His Occidental College records, including information on any financial aid that he received
- His Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
- His Noelani Elementary School records, where he attended kindergarten (according to the Hawaii Department of Education, students must submit a birth certificate to register -- but parents may bring a passport or student visa if the child is from a foreign country)
- His Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004
- Mr. Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard
- His Illinois State Bar Association records
- His Baptism records
- The Obama/Dunham marriage license
- The Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
- His adoption records

By the way, the issue of the Occidental College records is especially pertinent.

The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) served officials at Occidental College with a subpoena to produce records concerning Barack Obama's attendance there during the 1980s, because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national.

You see, Mr. Obama attended the school on a scholarship -- and there are questions as to whether the financial aid that he received was reserved for foreign students.

Barack Obama's attorneys bent over backward to block us. He doesn't want anyone to see those records. He's STILL trying to hide them; those financial records STILL have not been released.

During the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry hid his school records. When they were finally released, it turned out that he had hidden them because his grades were so low. Is that what Mr. Obama is doing?

WHAT is Barack Obama trying to hide? WHAT is he afraid of? WHY doesn't he just release these documents to prove that he is a natural-born citizen and, therefore, qualified to serve as President -- especially his actual birth certificate?
Isn't it time we FORCED him to come clean?

I dared bring Barack Obama into court to force him to produce his birth certificate and to put an end to the controversy over his status as a "natural born" citizenship once and for all.

And now he's coming after me and the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) -- the public-interest legal group that I founded over 30 years ago -- with a vengeance!

Why? Because we dare to seek the TRUTH!

And they must have something to hide, because Mr. Obama's attorneys have threatened to spend, and then sanction, USJF out of existence.

All this because we started asking ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: Where Was Barack Hussein Obama born?

Dan Ruddy, a presidential historian, who has a book coming out next year on Theodore Roosevelt, recently pointed out on NewsMax.com just how rare Obama is among presidents. He said we have no idea of where his birthplace actually is.

Ruddy noted that, of our unbroken line of 43 men who have served as president, only Zachary Taylor and Andrew Jackson -- both born on the frontier -- have disputed birth sites. Every other president has some commemoration for his place of birth... except for Barack Obama.

In fact, his family has given two different hospitals in Hawaii where he was alleged to have been born.

Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa -- not Hawaii as he claims -- and, therefore, cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling.

First, Mr. Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate. If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to allow the press to see the birth certificate?

Second, the contention by Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later.
Plus, there is the recent letter that Mr. Obama wrote, contradicting his previous statements as to which hospital that he claims to have been born in, in Hawaii.

Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama's grandmother, the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access to the one person then alive who would have been present if he was actually born in Hawaii.

Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate.

Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama's step-grandmother, who claims that she was present at his birth... in what is now called Kenya!

Sixth, the "birth certificate" posted on the Obama campaign website and other liberal websites. Since Barack Obama was born in 1961, long before laser printers and office computers, his original birth certificate would be typewritten ... unlike the laser printed "copy" purported to be genuine.

The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President!

It's TRUE. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is a "natural born" citizen, his high-priced LA-based "dream team" of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs!

And they're loading both barrels!

So, unless you help me and my team here at USJF to stand our ground in court, Mr. Obama's hired guns could blow a financial hole in USJF's ability to be the proverbial thorn in Mr. Obama's side!

Barack Obama continues to battle any attempt to see his real birth certificate -- producing only a phony one posted on his website -- as well as fighting us tooth and nail as we seek access to his college records... records which we believe may prove that he was foreign born!

USJF served that subpoena upon Occidental College to gain access to Mr. Obama's college records, and we are fighting to get at the truth on many other fronts, as well, including:
- Appealing a case filed by USJF in California, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary, on behalf of 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, calling into question Mr. Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen;
- Funding and assisting local attorneys and Plaintiffs, in similar lawsuits, in Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi -- AND we've drafted more lawsuits to file over this issue; and -- We have initiated a campaign demanding that every State Attorney General take action now to just show us the TRUTH.

You see, when Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency.

Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is NOT legally the President of the United States, unless he is a "natural born citizen."

What's more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally serve as President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President... and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility.

Quite frankly, this crisis must be ended! And it must be ended NOW!

And that's just what we're fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution... and your liberty.

We have to press our case to stop Barack Obama from, apparently, illegally holding the Presidency, despite the ongoing threats against us. We are speaking of filing additional lawsuits and administrative actions, over and above the dozens already filed, if you will help us today.

I need your help right now in order to win this battle. Helping USJF with this campaign is your best shot, and, possibly your only chance, at finding out whether Barack Obama is legally holding the Presidency of our great nation, or whether he is a fraud -- a usurper!

Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States?

We will not be intimidated. But we MUST have your help immediately if USJF is to survive this fight to the finish -- and if the U.S. Constitution is to weather this crisis intact!

Our country is on the fast track to disaster ... but you can help us keep the situation from getting worse. I pray that I'll hear from you today.

Gary Kreep, Executive DirectorUnited States Justice Foundation

P. S.: This is the biggest political cover-up in American history!
It would be so simple to release the documents to PROVE that Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen... IF HE HAD THE DOCUMENTS!

America has never before faced such a threat. Everything we hold dear is at risk with Barack Obama sitting as President without him releasing his actual birth certificate and other documents.

Barack Hussein Obama thinks he can get away with DUPING the American people and DESTROYING the U.S. Constitution. DON'T LET HIM DO IT!

If you have any interest in donating to this cause, here is the address.

To donate by check, please mail to:
United States Justice Foundation

National Processing Center
PO Box 131637
Dept Code 2828
Houston, TX 77219-1637

The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a non-profit organization, whose tax-exempt status under IRS section 501(c)(3) has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Your contributions are tax deductible. Corporate contributions may be accepted.

I Have No Interest In The USJF!

Friday, August 7, 2009

Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Common Bind To The Birth Certificate

Posted by David Crockett

I have extensive knowledge of computers, including graphics manipulation.

I have reviewed both certificates from Australia and Kenya, and believe both are valid and not forged certificates. Neither shows signs of being forged (or even remotely so).

So, if they are both valid, then there must be something that binds them to nearly identical record formats, right? I believe that bind is English Common Law.

Both Kenya and Australia are British Commonwealth of Nations. What is the Commonwealth of Nations?
From Wikipedia:“The Commonwealth was established on 11 December 1931. It is not a political union, but an intergovernmental organisation”Most of these “member states” were formerly parts of the British Empire (see Wikipedia).These member nations (which can be independent) mostly use English Common Law (see Wikipedia) under the Culture section:“Mostly due to their history of British rule, many Commonwealth nations possess certain identifiable traditions and customs that are elements of a shared Commonwealth culture. Examples include common sports such as cricket and rugby, driving on the left, the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, common law”.

Kenya was part of the British Empire in 1961, and as such, used English Common Law for any type of records and registration.

Australia joined the British Commonwealth of Nations in December, 1931 (see Wikipedia nation members’ list) and also uses English Common Law.

So, I’ve established that both countries use English Common Law. One country, Kenya, when it was part of the British empire in 1961, and the other country, Australia, after it joined the Commonwealth of Nations (and was formerly part of the British empire).

Because both countries use English Common Law (or did as members of the Commonwealth and British Empire), they were subject to the provisions of the English Common Law of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

The Act was created before both the births of Obama and the Australian Bomford.The birth forms come from the British Registrar General for any nations using English Common Law and this Birth Registration Act (see section 25 of this Act).

“Registers of live–births, still–births and deaths shall be in such form as may be respectively prescribed, and the Registrar General shall provide any such registers, and any of the forms hereafter mentioned for making certified copies of entries in registers, which may be required for the purposes of this Act”Each Commonwealth Nation has a District Registrar’s office that has a “Principal Registrar” as defined by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

The General Registrar Office is the “parent” office for all “district” offices and resides in Britain (see the powers granted by this act to the Registrar General).

There are also “Superintendent Registrars” that are above “Principal Registrars”.


So, I’ve established that all the same criteria must be meant on these forms and the information is collected on forms provided to the Commonwealth Nations by the Registrar General, hence the similar formats of the Australia and Kenyan certificates.The only difference should be the Deputy Registrar’s signature, Registrar Seal, the Commonwealth symbol (appearing at the top), and the information on the family and newborn child.

All these things are different (as should be) between the two certificates.

The signature of Registrar (not Deputy Registrar) may be a typo between the certificates.

It appears the same Registrar General was working from at least 1959 thru 1961 servicing Common Wealth Nations on behalf of the General Registrar’s office in Britain.

One of the certificates is likely correct, whoever typed in the wrong initial should have been fired! In any case, it was typed out - and someone typed it in, and humans do make mistakes.

*The “7s 6d” at the top-left hand corners of each certificate represents the cost (in British currency -7 shillings and 6 (old) pence) of the requested copy of the certificate.


*The number “495″ on each certificate appearing after the cost is the form number.


There is more than one version of the form, depending on the type of birth as explained by the Registrar’s office. Each form type is assigned a unique number. It identifies the type of Certificate. In this case, both parents were married at the time of the child’s birth.

The Registrar’s office at the time (and now) has a different form for those unmarried. It’s why you see “The year of present marriage” on both certificates.

Because these forms were typed out, a separate form was necessary to denote non-married parents. It’s why this form was chosen.

It also explains why Kitau of Kenya has the same format as the other certificates: Kitau says: “I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya. I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put on by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical."

Check it for yourself...

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Tea Party-Bashers Gone Wild

From Michelle Malkin's post at TownHall...

The activist Left can't stand competition.
Last week in Long Island, N.Y., opponents of the Democrats' government health care takeover legislation outnumbered Obama supporters 10 to one. The Tea Party activists toted American flags and signs that read,
"WE CAN'T AFFORD FREE HEALTH CARE" -- prompting one foe to stalk into the peaceful crowd, gesticulate wildly and shout unintelligible threats at the top of his lungs.

The same Democrat Masters of Astroturf who encouraged their followers to use "in-your-face" tactics during the campaign season now balk at vocal opposition from their fiscally conservative neighbors and co-workers.

Obama's architects of Kabuki town halls have packed public forums with partisan plants. Now they accuse opponents gathering at impromptu rallies against the massive health care takeover legislation (which no one has read) of orchestrating "manufactured anger."

Unaccustomed to pushback, the wealthy, astroturfed ground troops for Obamacare -- underwritten by unions, liberal philanthropists, the AARP, ACORN and your tax dollars -- have resorted to projection.

As I've reported previously, the single-payer lobby boasts a $40 million budget and a stable of seasoned political operatives based at 1825 K Street in Washington, D.C.

Now that cabal is accusing the broad coalition of taxpayer activists, libertarians, independents, talk radio loyalists, bloggers and first-time protesters against socialized medicine of being, yes, wealthy and astroturfed.

In a comical missive issued Tuesday afternoon, Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse complained: "The Republicans and their allied groups -- desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill -- are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right-wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country."

The DNC definition of "thoughtful:" Sitting silent about the lack of transparency, deliberation, truth in numbers and reciprocity on the Obamacare plan. The DNC definition of incitement: Asking out loud, "How can you manage health care when you can't manage Cash for Clunkers?"

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, apparently oblivious to the dozens of well-dressed and well-heeled former lobbyists and influence peddlers employed by his own boss, derided health care town hall protesters as the "Brooks Brothers brigade." Brooks Brothers was also the president's clothes designer of choice on Inauguration Day.

He taunted: "I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying."

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dispatched a memo obtained by D.C.-based newspaper Human Events assuring Democrats of "close coordination" with faux grass-roots groups "including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc."

But never mind all that.

Some panicked congressional targets of the Tea Party movement have responded by shutting their offices, closing their blinds and shooing pesky constituents off public property. The White House health czar's office is mustering up Internet snitches to report "inaccurate" blog posts and "casual conversations" from health care opponents.

And liberal bloggers and cable yakkers are waging their own war on the Tea Party movement by redefining participatory democracy as "thuggery" and "hooliganism."

Talking Points Memo blogger Josh Marshall bemoaned a fiscal conservative activist's memo offering advice on how to "pack the hall … spread out" and challenge a politician early "to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda." Horrors!
"This amounts to a sort of civic vigilanteism," Marshall fretted.

No, showing up at a congressional town hall and booing a talking points-programmed political hack isn't "civic vigilantism." Throwing rocks, pouring cement on train tracks, blocking military shipments, smashing windows, hurling paint, slashing tires, vandalizing businesses and throwing shoes are vigilante acts.

That is what the anti-war, anti-free trade, anti-Bush mobsters did over the last eight years -- and there wasn't a peep about those brute tactics from Obama's blogging pals.

They sat quietly while Code Pink disrupted hearings on the Hill and harassed Marine recruiters.

They looked the other way when ACORN illegally broke into homes and stormed foreclosure auctions.

They gave their tacit approval to self-declared "bank terrorists" like Boston housing entitlement organizer Bruce Marks, who shows up at the schools of bank executives' children and bullies them because of their parents' employment in the name of social justice.

Now, the taxpayers footing the bill for Obama's redistribution of health and wealth are silent no more -- and the unhinged Left is beside itself. The "thoughtful" left-wing response to the Tea Party counterinsurgency can best be summed up by hysterical Hollywood actress Janeane Garafolo, who railed last week: "F**ng redneck d**chebaggery. Unmitigated d**chebaggery."

It's not the town halls that have gone wild.
It's the Tea Party-bashers who can't tolerate peaceful, open dissent.

Heck, after reading that, I'm wondering where my checks from "K Street" are? Have they been held up in the mail? Have they been sent to my old address?

Maybe I'll need to contact my "K Street Lobyists" and send them a bill for my F***ing Redneck D**chebaggery and my Civic Vigilanteism!