All we hear from Democrats is that this is a terrible imposition on government employees who have kids to feed.  No mention of the 15 – 20 million unemployed who don’t have gravy to sop.

We hear about the “horrible situation” where boy scout groups won’t be able to climb to the top of the Washington Monument because of the shutdown!  Well, let’s just  put a few more million people out of work so we can open the national parks.

Hmmm…

IT’S THE SPENDING, STUPID

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2008.  The housing collapse occurs because of government regulatory malfiescance resulting in President Bush promoting and the Congress passing TARP – Troubled Asset Relief Program.  The $700 billion it promised had to be borrowed, of course.  The fiscal deficit for the 2008 budget ballooned to $454.8 billion.

As soon as Obama took office in 2009 he and the Democrats in charge in Congress passed the Stimulus plan for another $800+ billion in borrowed money.  The federal deficit for fiscal 2009 skyrocketed to $1,400 billion – $1.4 trillion.

The deficit for 2010 was $1,290 billion – $1.29 trillion.  And it continues forever.  Hat tip, Heritage Foundation.

As of now, 40% of what the federal government spends it has to borrow. Well, I know that’s how you solve your budget problems.  If you spend $100,000 a year, but your income has dropped to $60,000, you don’t cut back so you can live within your means.  Of course not!  You borrow the $40,000 and propose to raise your spending to $150,000 next year. Then when someone points out that you can’t do that, you agree to live on only $130,000 next year and complain that you were forced into a $20,000 cut!  Right?

The Democrats in charge in late 2010 (when the 2011 budget is required to be adopted) refused to pass a budget for fiscal 2011.  We have no budget, so it’s hard to state what the deficit is – there is nothing to measure the spending against.  But we do have what Mr. Obama proposed as a 2011 budget.

In response to our fiscal train wreck, Mr. Obama took the radical step of proposing a FREEZE ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WAGES!  This was after he raised discretionary spending 24% in two years while the rest of the economy was going through the worst recession since the 1930′s, of course.  This was after he:

Had made huge increases in the number of federal employees.

Raised the salaries of federal workers beyond all comprehension.   

He had agreed to raises in federal employee benefits.  Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

After this, Mr. Obama proposed a pay freeze for federal employees which did not include any pay freeze for 2 years; and after that 60% of federal employees could get raises anyway.  Besides, it had nothing to do with any benefits other than salary.  He touted this as an austerity move designed to control federal spending.

With the Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, they go on a two-year spending bacchanal of spending, regulatory, and executive order-driven political tyranny.  Bush, Obama, and the Democrat Congress have increased the total federal debt 100% since 2004.  Today we owe $14.2 trillion in accumulated debt.  Under Mr. Obama’s 2011 budget plan - that Republicans want to cut by as much as 1.6% - that will turn our current $14.2 trillion debt into $24 trillion just 9 years from now.  This projection from the Congressional Budget Office does not consider any future expenditures for more non-productive wind farms and other “green” power; nor does it include the hidden expenses in the Democrat socialized health care plan.  It does not include funding for Mr. Obama’s third war in the Middle East.  It does not include EPA regulation of CO2, or any of the other hairbrained ideas he proposes.

Republicans are demanding somewhere between $32 billion and $61 billion dollars in spending cuts for the current year (0.8 to 1.6 percent of Obama’s proposed but never adopted 2011 budget), the Democrats are are so concerned about the little people that they are prepared to shut down the government in order to stop it.  This after the Democrat Party has spent $trillions in money the country does not have, and can only create by establishing extremely hyperinflation for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats increase spending and borrowing by $trillions in two years, and then cannot agree to a cut of 1.6% of that increased spending much less actually cut back!  What are they thinking?

The Democrats are demanding that they keep 92% to 96% of the $800 billion in annual spending hikes since 2007 and are unwilling at all to consider cutting it by 1.6% in order to save the U.S. economy.

Neither you nor your descendants will retain either your culture or your freedom if we permit irresponsible elected leaders to make stupid decisions like this.

WE WASTE HUNDREDS OF $BILLIONS EVERY YEAR

We still have subsidies for mohair to insure we have wool for military uniforms for soldiers who have used synthetics for decades. 

We are still spending U.S. taxpayer money to support the Iranian, Syrian, Cuban, and Sudanese nuclear programs. 

We spend $24 billion on the Department of Energy – which only began under President Carter, and which has done absolutely nothing to increase energy production in the U.S.  Speaking of energy, we are all suffering because the price of gasoline has doubled since Mr. Obama took office.  His suggestion: trace in your truck and get an electric car.  Mr. Obama is apparently under the impression that nobody actually needs a puckup truck, or a larger powerful vehicle for work.  Btw, he says he used to pump gas.  Of course now that he’s important he doesn’t have to anymore, but all of us do.  Can he remember the price per gallon?

We send money for Brazil to drill for offshore oil and refuse to do it ourselves.  But we promise to buy it from Brazil!

The federal government wastes between $67 billion and $230 billion a year in Medicare fraud alone every year.

We spend $140 billion a year on the Department of Education which didn’t exist until Jimmy Carter was president.  Despite about a $trillion in federal aid to education, we continue to fall behind other countries in educational rank.  It’s so bad, we had to renorm the SAT because the “average” test taker can’t keep up with the average test taker in the early 1960′s.

But the Democrats will shut down the government in order to keep this all going; because they care!

MY RECOMMENDATION

I could go on, but we are told that 800,000 federal government employees are “non-essential employees” and will be laid off during the shutdown.  My suggestion is that since they are non-essential, we just don’t bring them back.  Keep the “essential workers,” cut the budget and let us rebuild the country.

The summary here presents “70 specific recommendations that can be implemented right away.”  Among them:

Hospitals and health care providers should use maternity care practices that empower new mothers to breastfeed, such as the Baby-Friendly hospital standards.  Are there really hospitals in American which don’t encourage breastfeeding?  Do mothers really need to be “empowered by the federal government” to breastfeed?

Local health departments and community-based organizations, working with health care providers, insurance companies, and others should develop peer support programs that empower pregnant women and mothers to get the help and support they need from other mothers who have breastfed.  Do you want to pay the taxes necessary for the government to oversee the creation of ‘community-based organizations’ as they create peer support programs and recruiting of women who have previously breastfed?  How will they screen the volunteer prior breastfeeding mothers?  Where will they meet?  Who will pay for the room, and who will be paid to conduct the meetings?

The AAP guidelines on screen time should be made more available to parents, and young children should be encouraged to spend less time using digital media and more time being physically active.  Everyone knows kids need to be active; they are active without your help.  But this objective is in keeping with The One’s concern that people are getting too much information from digital sources.  Got to stop that.

All media and entertainment companies should limit the licensing of their popular characters to food and beverage products that are healthy and consistent with science-based nutrition standards.  Okay; when will we hear about the Blue Ribbon Committee to establish a basis for determining which entertainers are considered “popular?”  Just what we need, government control of how movie stars earn money, and what they will be permitted to endorse.

If voluntary efforts to limit the marketing of less healthy foods and beverages to children do not yield substantial results, the FCC could consider revisiting and modernizing rules on commercial time during children’s programming.  Now we need to government panel to decide which foods are less healthy so we can limit their exposure to kids – that ought to take half a $billion and 7 or 8 years to finalize.  Then, of course, we need some rule-making on what is considered “substantial results.”  This is a biggie, so that could cost much more and require several new commissions and panels.  There could be a sub-committee on what is meant by the term “results.”  Does that mean actual time spent watching the screen?  Does it mean a certain percentage of kids who are no longer obese?  The opportunities for new federal, unionized employees are endless.

Increase resources for school meals.  This is recommendation 3.2, you should know.  This means purchasing food directly from Michelle’s organic garden on the White House premises, and we know that this will take a lot of new “resources.”

It goes on, and on, and on:

Schools should consider upgrading their cafeteria equipment to support the provision of healthier foods, for example, by swapping out deep fryers for salad bars.  This will no doubt insure Republican victories for generations to come.

Where possible use school gardens to educate students about healthy eating.  Great, more union rototiller operators, cow manure, weed pulling for detention duty for wayward students.

This goes on ad nauseum.  The Busybodies-In-Charge in Washington find new and creative ways to interfere in our lives every day.  Of course, this is all the result of supporting Representatives and Senators – and a President Barack Obama – who proposed and supported taking over all health care in America.  The one who pays for the service gets to decide who gets access to it.  Sure fat kids are a drain on the health care resources we have in this country; but so are drunken Senators, overweight federal bureaucrats; so are people who smoke.  If we hadn’t lost our Republic some 80 or 90 years ago, they would have to pay for their own, self-inflicted, disgusting diseases and health problems.  As it is now, you will have to pay for it.  So now everyone has an interest in telling everyone else what they should be eating,how much time they should spend watching TV and other media, and how much they should weigh.  This should really help bring everyone together.  I can hardly wait.

It seems to me that the Obamas should worry less about how fat the kids are, and start worrying about how fat our killer debt is, and how fat federal salaries and retirement are.  It is suffocating us all, and soon we will not be able to breathe at all.  Thankfully we will be resuscitated (if we are under 55) by a unionized, federal employee EMT.

Among the charges they made against King George was, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people and eat out their substance.”  It was impossible for me not to think of this in light of the more than 100 new boards and commissions created in the Democrat health care legislation including enough money for the Internal Revenue Service to hire up to 16,000 new “Officers to harrass our people and eat out their substance.”  Just sayin’.

Most of them are of the “I think we should defy gravity in America; and I insist we rely on the settled science of physics to do it” variety.

If you need a laugh, and I suspect you do, please check out the link and see how the progressivel brain works.  Well, perhaps “works” is too strong of a word; just sayin’.

Hat tip: www.spectator.org

“But, uh, you know, Wen, uh… my presidency depends on your support!” 

Better yet, send me your own captions and I will print them in a future post.  

President Barack Obama meets with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a bilateral at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Dec. 18, 2009. 

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. 

(Official White House disclaimer at Flickr.com)  I am in compliance, I am not suggesting approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

The pattern

The pattern for Hitler as well as the Soviet dictators was to reach out and grab territory that didn’t belong to them.  Then when the world complained, jumped up and down and said this can’t stand; the dictators would say, “We have interests here,” or “We were invited in.”  Under more pressure, they would say, “Let’s negotiate!”  Unfortunately, the liberals and pacifists in the U.S., Britain, and France said “Yes, negotiation is the way to go,” and began to negotiate.  The dictators would give half of the country back, and the green weenie liberals in the west would declare it a victory.  This is how National Socialism expanded under Hitler, and how the Soviet Union expanded throughout the world.

Hitler and the National Socialists 

Hitler took over Austria March 17, 1938 and the west did nothing; the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot September 29, 1938 and the west complained.  Then he violated the peace agreement he made with Poland by invading in the fall of 1939 and the west complained even more.  In 1940 he invaded France and finally the west had to get involved; he later invaded Russia. 

The Communist Dictators Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev 

The Communists of the Soviet Union were allies with Britain and the U.S. during the later part of WW2.  Following the end of the war, Stalin agreed that all the nations his army occupied at the end of the war would be able to have free elections. 

That didn’t happen, of course; the ‘iron curtain’ descended around East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Albania – all of which Stalin had agreed would have free elections.  Besides this, the communists occupied Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Armenia, and Moldavia among a few others. 

Then they began to covertly take over Cuba, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and other western hemisphere countries, along with the attempt to gain access to a year-round warm water port by invading Afghanistan and then going through Pakistan.  

The Obama Democrats

Now, neither the Nazis nor the Soviets are engaging in the same activity, but it worked so well for them that the policy is being followed by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party rewrite the U.S. Constitution without citizen participation; and to carry out a domestic peaceful coup of the United States.

The pattern in health care is to try to take it over 100% in two weeks.  When that didn’t happen, try to do it in the next month or so.  When that doesn’t happen, go home, hold town hall meetings and try to muscle people into giving up.  When that doesn’t work, give away the ‘public option;’ when that fails give away the community ‘non-profit cooperatives;’ when that fails, give away the government controlled private health care company; and when that doesn’t work spend the people’s money to purchase votes; and when that doesn’t work, say you will pass anything in order to declare it a victory.  And it will be a victory because all the boards, commissions, taxes, and control will still be there.

These anti-democrats do not want your input; they plan to dictate everything.  They reach out and steal what belongs to the people, and when we demand they give it back, they want to negotiate.

We have dictators in the Congress and White House; the way to deal with them is by power not negotiation.  Their thirst for power over every aspect of your life is insatiable, you cannot negotiate with dictators.  (I’m wondering if anyone can think of a better name for these people other than ‘dictators.’)  The power of the people must be used in next year’s elections, and the presidential campaign of 2013.  Follow the Nancy Reagan dictum: Just say no.

We show up at rallies only to be called an unwashed mob, Nazis, obstructionists; we show up at town hall meetings with our elected representatives and are pushed out of the meeting by union thugs, delayed until the room is filled with supporters only, ignored, denounced, degraded, treated like junk.  We are considered evil by the mainstream media outlets even as they are going broke for loss of audience share.  Without doubt we terrify the assorted communists, fascists, socialists, pinkos, bureaucratic totalitarians, and new age relativists in power now; we would ruin their (almost completed) takeover of American cultural, economic, political, and religious life.  We point our that their vaunted new clothes are only imaginary, and their naked hatred of the human condition is unsightly.

We are aghast at why they insist on instituting programs that stifle the human spirit; why they think the imposition of their utopian ideas is a better approach than the principle of liberty.  We are baffled by their naïve, child-like approach to evil wherever it exists in the republic itself or the world at large. 

For 23 years I did talk radio in Portland, Oregon, and one of my most memorable interviews was with British philosopher Dr. Roger Scruton regarding his book The West and the Rest, ISI Books 2001.  Recently Dr. Scruton wrote a brief essay titled “Totalitarian Sentimentality” you can (and should) read the essay here.   Purchase the book at a discount here.

“Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay.  Conservatives therefore maintain severe and – to many people – unattractive attitudes.  They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service.  They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency.” 

“Liberals are of course very different.  They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment.  They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included.  And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better.  Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give – something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves.”

For liberals, “Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess.  This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs.  Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves.  On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden.  The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase of its power both to tax us and to control our lives.”

 Read this essay; read the book – you’ll love them both.

Yes, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government put into office last January has passed legislation in the House during the dark of night last Saturday that includes fines of up to $500,000 and prison sentences of up to 5 years for failure to purchase something you may not want or need. 

When we first mentioned this, many in the media were flabbergasted, called it stupid, not true, and those who would say such a slanderous thing are crazy.  

Here are two authentic, unimpeachable sources that prove the Democrats are prepared to send you to jail if you don’t purchase a commodity they want you to pay for. 

First, the Congressional Joint Commission on Taxation affirms the truth of the legislation here; and Nancy Pelosi is asked about jail time for not purchasing something she wants you to buy by a journalist from KOMO during a press conference, and she admits that such a provision is in the legislation, and says, “The legislation is very fair in this respect.” 

The people voted for change without bothering to consider what kind of changes Mr. Obama had in mind.  How’s that hope ‘n change working out for you now? 

May I suggest that you be in touch with your Senators and ask them to tell you where in the Constitution it gives them the authority to spend government money to provide health care for anyone since the Constitution is a document that grants only specific powers to the federal government.  

They will almost universally go to the “general welfare” clauses in the Preamble, and in Article 1; Section 8; clause one, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” 

If they cite this provision, tell them that they can levy taxes for the general welfare of the United States, not the individual citizens of the United States; two very different entities.  In addition, the 9^th and 10^th Amendments – part of the Bill of Rights – state explicitly that the powers of the federal government are limited, enumerated, and it has no powers other than those specifically granted to it in the Constitution, with all other rights belonging to the states or the people themselves. 

If they want to change the Constitution, tell them to do it legally.  They must stop this treasonous, perverted power grab.  The Democrat coup must be stopped.  Medicare isn’t Constitutional, Social Security isn’t Constitutional, federal money for education isn’t Constitutional – in fact most of the money our federal government spends is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution.  If that sounds radical, just read the thing for yourself. 

The health care bill passed by the House is 2,000 pages long; 9,000% longer than the Constitution.  That ought to tell us something.

As I write, the U.S. House is preparing to vote on legislation prescribing how the government can nationalize healthcare.  The legislation is some 2,035 pages in length and was written mostly by private, for-profit, and non-profit interest groups. 

This is part one of a series of posts dealing with America at a crossroad.  Is this the time to add $trillions to our already suffocating debt?  Do we want a country where most of the large industries and services are nationalized and operated by bureaucrats?  Do we want to retain our freedoms, or would we rather trade them for security?  This post deals with the process of legislators trading away your liberties, and how that is presently underway.

How laws originate

Many people are not aware that most legislation in the U.S. Congress does not begin with a Senator or Representative who sees something they think needs to be done – it begins as a set of proposals, or bullet points written by either an individual citizen who has influence over a Congressman, or by an interest group.  

These ideas and proposals – in some cases written in legal language – are given to the Congressman who agrees to try to find support among his colleagues.  Those meetings are coordinated with lobbyists who work for the interest group who pressure legislators to become co-sponsors.  The hope is to build momentum and craft a law or set of laws that are designed to carry out some vision held by the unknown person or group deemed to be in their interest, not the interest of all citizens.  Examples are the health care bill under consideration; or the so-called Cap and Trade legislation working in favor of people like Al Gore who stand to become billionaires because they are poised to profit from the legislation, not because there is any climate change. 

How laws are passed

If the person or group has lots of money, and have contributed heavily to a set of Congressmen, they then lobby those people to force the legislation through committee with the implied threat that funds for re-election may not be available if the Congressman does not carry the legislation forward. 

Staff for the Congressman, and a whole legal department is tasked with integrating the proposed legislation into the already existing body of law by writing the legal language that you always see – something like, ‘the provisions of this subpart (a) of paragraph (B) notwithstanding all other portions of this section (1) apply under terms outlined in USC 19100 (D) (e) 1-14, in all other cases legislation applies to…’  Blah, blah, blah. 

When something controversial reaches the proportions that the so-called health care legislation has, in order to collect sufficient votes for passage, all kinds of promises are made.  These promises are usually fulfilled as earmarks.  Legislators refer to these promises as trade-offs, but they are still bribes.  They are always an appeal to the legislator’s pride or greed: get noticed and advanced, or get re-elected and rich. 

For example, a new Representative in the House is against the health care legislation proposed.  How can the leadership get that person to vote the way they want him to instead of how his constituents want him to vote (probably the way he promised to vote)? 

They tell him that he will never be put on the committee he wants to be on, and will never hold any leadership position in the House if he doesn’t comply.  They tell him that the Party will not support him with money for his re-election campaign if he doesn’t comply.  They tell him he will never stand up with the leadership when the TV cameras are on so he gets national exposure; and on and on. 

If this fails, they will ask him what he wants in order to vote the way the leadership wants him to vote.  He will be bribed with money for his district: perhaps a $billion or two for the new medical hospital at a state university that can then bear his name; perhaps several $billion for an upgrade to a highway near property he owns, or a friend owns increasing the value of the property; the number and kinds of opportunities are infinite. 

Over the years, cable TV franchises have been handed out by this means, property values are increased by this means, lucrative positions on the Boards of large companies are obtained by this means, and family members have their companies receive contracts for government work, and so on. How do you think a legislator who has no wealth when he is elected, is paid $174,000 a year and has to maintain two residences, retires after serving several terms a multi-millionaire?  The Democrat leadership in the House is selling your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in return for the personal gain of individual U.S. Congressmen to get a “yes” vote on health care.  What does the Democrat leadership gain?  Control over you life. 

At this moment, and through the night last night, Democrats in the U.S. House were promising to give away $billions of your tax dollars in order to purchase votes in favor of legislation that the Representative opposes.  This is why they say there are two things you don’t want to watch being made: sausage and legislation.  Sausage, at least, has some nutritional value although under the new legislation, you probably won’t be permitted to eat it.

Below is a list of 26 specific examples of the use of raw, abusive, force used by Mr. Obama during his campaign in 2008, and the first 10 months of his presidency.  Since the list is long, and I am writing it to permenantly document the abuses, you may want to print this post for future reference.  Feel free to use the links I have provided as proof of Mr. Obama’s malfeasance and calumny.

I am not including the abuse of power Mr. Obama is practicing through the unconstitutional use of so-called “Czars” creating policy without Senate Advise and Consent; nor am I writing the larger questions of circumventions of the law with regard to unauthorized spending of government money for things other than approved by legislation or the attempt to nationalize manufacturing, health care, banking, personal incomes, and more.  I will treat those issues in other posts, I am dealing here with Mr. Obama’s disposition. 

Threatening political opponents

In July of 2008, at a fundraiser, Mr. Obama – quoting the Untouchables who had to fight Chicago gangsters revealed his disposition toward civil debate, “If they bring a knife, we will bring a gun,” speaking of how the campaign would be waged.  As you will see, he was prophetic. 

Intimidation to prevent personal embarrassment of Barack Obama

During his campaign for president, Mr. Obama appealed to the Justice Department to asking them to file criminal charges against individuals helping to fund the American Issues Project because the group was running a political ad that was embarrassing to Mr. Obama. 

Intimidation of WGN in Chicago

The Obama campaign sent instructions to his supporters through an “Obama Action Wire” to harass radio station WGN in Chicago because a guest on an interview show discussed documents proving that Mr. Obama was lying when he said he had no connection to terrorist Bill Ayers. 

Intimidation of Joe the plumber

During the campaign while stopping in Ohio, Mr. Obama was asked by Joe Wurzelbacher, “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250 to $280 thousand dollars a year.  Your new tax plan’s going to tax me more isn’t it?” 

Mr. Obama replied, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success.  My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody.  If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s a good thing for everybody.”  (Never having operated a company, Mr. Obama couldn’t explain how taking profits away from the plumbing company to give it to potential customers so they pay the plumber back his own money would make anyone better off.) 

Immediately following this encounter, supporters of Mr. Obama who worked in the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services began combing through Wurzelbacher’s government files releasing privileged information to Obama supporters in media outlets in an attempt to embarrass a private citizen who had the nerve to ask Mr. Obama a question. 

Intimidation of media in Missouri

During the campaign state prosecutors and county sheriffs in Missouri who supported Mr. Obama were asked by the Obama campaign to threaten any media outlet if they broadcast or printed anything the Obama campaign determined to be embarrassing to Mr. Obama. 

Intimidation of the Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post

Another strong-arm tactic that Mr. Obama used during the campaign should have warned the voters about his disposition to abuse power was to throw reporters from his campaign bus.  Reporters from the Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post were denied access to the media bus traveling with Mr. Obama immediately after the three newspapers endorsed Mr. McCain. 

Threatening a whole political party

On the third day of his presidency Mr. Obama lectured Republicans in Congress telling them that they better not listen to Rush Limbaugh.  This was an attempt to silence Mr. Limbaugh, and to intimidate elected officials with regard to whose opinions they listen to.  The Bill of Rights be damned. 

Voter intimidation

Not long after his election, Mr. Obama’s hand-picked (and incompetent) Attorney General Eric Holder squashed a Department of Justice investigation in process. DOJ attorneys were building a case against thugs from the New Black Panther Party in a number or states who were obstructing and intimidating voters - white voters they suspected might vote Republican. 

The lawyers investigating were not politically motivated – they were staff attorneys, not political appointees.  They had video and audio of members of the New Black Panther Party dressed up like Nazi’s brandishing police batons threatening and intimidating white voters who they thought might support John McCain for president.  Despite clear violations of the Constitution and federal laws, Mr. Obama is clearly willing to permit street thugs to take care of intimidating his political opponents and then use the U.S. Department of Justice to let them get away with it.  This will no doubt encourage more abuse in the future since denying potential conservative voters the opportunity to vote is obviously a goal of the Obama administration.

Intimidation of pro-lifers, gun owners, and military veterans

In April of this year, the Department of Homeland Security under the direction of Janet Napolitano wasted no time attacking conservative people in the United States as potentially planning terrorist attacks inside the country.  The report named people who are “pro-life,” who support “the Second Amendment;” those who take a stand against “illegal aliens,” and “returning military veterans,” as risk groups for committing terror attacks in the U.S. 

This had no basis in fact of course, and the outcry about this brazen Democrat attempt to suppress what they think is disagreeable political thought was so loud the White House had to distance itself from the report; soon it was retracted.     

We know this act by Homeland Security was in keeping with Mr. Obama’s disposition regarding conservative citizens in America.  We have him on tape denouncing people who disagree with him as people clinging to their guns or their religion, who oppose immigration; and includes them with those who don’t like the idea of a black man in the White House.  This is Mr. Obama’s view of people who support legal immigration, who are serious about their Christianity, and who support the Constitution.    

Intimidation of Gerald Walpin to protect fraud committed by supporters of Mr. Obama

Inspector General of the Corporation for National Community Service, Gerald Walpin, was charged with insuring that government money given through grants to organizations promoting community service was summarily fired. 

Inspectors General are independent from the entity they audit in order to ensure honesty.  They are to provide oversight to help prevent fraud, waste, and criminal activity with involving your tax dollars.  The Corporation for National Community Service is the government entity that distributes $millions to various groups including AmeriCorps (highly favored by Mrs. Obama) and Mr. Walpin’s audit found a great deal of fraud in an organization founded by Kevin Johnson the former NBA basketball player and ardent supporter of Mr. Obama.  The money was given to St. Hope to provide tutoring for poor kids in the Sacramento school system. 

He found that more than $800,000 of government grant money was misspent on Sacrament School Board political activity, salary increases for St. Hope employees, paying personnel to provide personal services for Mr. Johnson like mowing his lawn, washing his personal car, and running errands. 

Soon after Mr. Walpin issued his report he received a call to his mobile phone on a Wednesday night from attorney Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform.  ‘Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it’s time to move on,’” Walpin recalls.  “Eisen said, ‘You can either resign, or I’ll tell you that we’ll have to terminate you.’”  Mr. Walpin said he needed some time to think about it; Eisen said he had one hour.  Eisen called him back in 45 minutes. 

Mr. Walpin knew the timing was critical.  What he had reported made the Directors of AmeriCorps very – they didn’t want a DOJ investigation of their funding of pet projects for political supporters of Democrats.  Walpin declined to resign.  He was immediately fired.  Walpin reminded the officials that Mr. Obama himself had supported legislation that made it impossible to fire an Inspector General without 30 days’ notice, and that he wasn’t resigning.  The Obama administration had to back off.  For 30 days. 

Obama knew that the so-called Stimulus Bill would provide tens or hundreds of $millions for Sacramento and New York, and that helps attract votes for him, but the violations were so serious that both cities could lose any future funding.  The answer: squash the message and kill the messenger; Walpin had to go. 

When the 30 days were up, he was fired; now he has filed a lawsuit against the government for the illegal firing.  This is what happens when a member of the ‘Obama family’ gets caught engaging in illegal activities – “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It.”  Saul Alinsky shows the way for the Obama administration.  Disagreeing with Barack Obama can seriously cost you. 

Intimidation of private by promoting secret reporting on neighbors to the White House

Following the East German Stasi program of ratting out your neighbor for being insufficiently ardent about his health care plan, Mr. Obama sought to intimidate American citizens by asking people who received any email with criticisms of his plans to forward the email to a White House website.  Doing this would provide political operatives with email addresses and URL’s for those he perceives as political enemies.  This is not the only attempt on the part of Mr. Obama to create an “enemies list.” 

Intimidation by secretly tracking American citizens’ comments on the Obama presidency

In another attempt to gather dirt on people who may not support his politics, the Obama administration – without any public notice – began to collect and archive comments made by tens of millions of Americans on social networking sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com. Mr. Obama continues to engage in the practice without notifying those who make posts on these personal websites.

By using this information, political operatives can keep tabs on who supports and who does not support this administration’s politics.  When seen as part of a larger picture, these attempts to gather the political thoughts of every American, and the illegal nationalizing of American manufacturing, banking, energy, and healthcare, it gets scary.  It’s clear that those who oppose the President can be identified and, given past performance, could be denied business banking loans, health care services and other goods and services now controlled by Mr. Obama and his operatives.  We have seen this ruthless policy already carried out with the Chrysler bondholders and dealers who supported John McCain – goods and services denied to citizens based solely on their opposition to Mr. Obama’s political policies. 

Intimidation of Tea Party citizens to deny them Constitutional rights

After trying to socialize American health care demanding that it be done in the space of two weeks, the debate heated up, and the Tea Parties began.  Mr. Obama and leading Democrat politicians attempted over and over to intimidate hundreds of thousands of Americans who were engaging in a Constitutional right.  Powerful government officials referred to these American citizens as Nazi’s, terrorists, unwashed mobs, and more, in a blatant attempt to coerce them into silence.  This single-minded policy on the part of Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party seeks to deny people the right to freely support or oppose the politics they want, and to force them into alignment with Mr. Obama’s political agenda.  We need to see this for what it is.  

Intimidation of citizens at townhall meetings

Recall these meetings held by Senators and Representatives during the summer recess.  In some cases, citizens were locked out of meetings to deny them the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.  In other cases, supporters of the Democrat politicians were bussed in to fill the room prior to opening the room for constituents; sometimes union thugs were present to intimidate constituents, sometimes very small rooms were used in order to prevent access to Congressional representatives.  In more than one case personal ID was required to access the room to speak to an elected official. 

Intimidation of private businesses

During the health care debate, Humana – one of the largest providers of private health insurance in America – notified its members about Humana’s opposition to the President’s plan and why they opposed it. 

Immediately Mr. Obama and his operatives began threatening Humana.  If Humana doesn’t stop promoting their own views on health care, the president and Congress will strip the insurance companies of anti trust protections. 

This is a private company, yet Mr. Obama will use the coercive power of the government to force them into compliance with his personal political agenda.  

Intimidation of democratic leaders in other countries

Manuel Zelaya, President of Honduras was elected in 2006.  Under the Honduran Constitution, anyone elected to the office of President can serve only one three-year term. 

In the course of his term Mr. Zelaya declared special trade deals with Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua; he imported doctors from these countries who immediately went into the countryside indoctrinating the peasants with communist ideas of revolution.  He defined anyone with more than a two bedroom home as rich and these “rich” people had to house the poor in their homes.  He raised the minimum wage by 60%, unemployment skyrockets, and he becomes very unpopular. 

In the last year of his presidency, Zelaya decides he wants to serve another term despite what the Constitution says and orders a referendum to be attached to the upcoming presidential primary ballots with a special place for people to vote on eliminating presidential term limits.  It is so outrageously illegal that he cannot find a printing company in Honduras to print the ballots; the entire Congress – minus 3 members – votes against this criminal move – even members of his own political party. 

Zelaya has the ballots printed by his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and are shipped to Honduras.  Mr. Zelaya orders the Chief of Staff of the Honduran military to distribute the ballots, and the Chief of Staff refuses because of the illegality of the move.  Mr. Zelaya fires the Chief of Staff; the Honduran Supreme Court orders him reinstated and the illegal ballots confiscated.  

Mr. Zelaya turns to radical supporters and street thugs ordering them to break into an Air Force base and seize the confiscated ballots. 

Honduras had finally had enough.  A thug is trying to take over their country, and must be stopped.  There is no provision for impeachment in the Honduran Constitution, but the laws apply to every citizen including the president.  Honduran law states, “The citizen who has served as head of the Executive branch shall not serve again as President or Vice President of the Republic…He who violates this disposition or proposes its reform…shall immediately be removed from office.” 

Because of the law and its violation by President Zelaya, the Supreme Court orders him arrested.  The military carried out the arrest warrant.  The office of Vice-President was vacant so the next in line to serve was the Speaker of the House who is sworn in as President; this individual – Roberto Micheletti – is a member of the same political party as Mr. Zelaya. 

Immediately Mr. Obama denounced this transition as a “military coup,” and began to punish the Honduran people for acting according to their own Constitution trying to preserve their democracy.  Up to this moment Obama insists that Honduras reinstate Zelaya who is attempting to do exactly what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.  The Obama administration has cut off consular visas with Honduras, as well as funding for the small country in desperate need of U.S. help.  

The Law Library of Congress was asked to investigate the legality of the Honduran actions, and produced a report for Congress in August stating,

“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings. The Constitution no longer authorizes impeachment, but gives Congress the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President, to conduct special investigations on issues of national interest, and to interpret the Constitution. In the case against President Zelaya, the National Congress interpreted the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President to encompass the power to remove him from office, based on the results of a special, extensive investigation.”   

Not getting the result he wanted, Democrat Senator John Kerry demands that the Law Library of Congress retract its analysis.  Can anyone pronounce the word “censorship”? On October 29, 2009, the Law Library of Congress has issued a statement saying they stand behind their report. 

Why would Mr. Obama and leading Democrat politicians insist on supporting a thuggish communist attempting to illegally take over the democratic government of Honduras; and oppose his legal ouster by our democratically elected friends in Honduras?  Perhaps Mr. Obama wants to set a precedent for his own future designs on the political structure of the U.S.  Scary. 

Intimidation of Chrysler bondholders

The Obama administration was so intent on providing financial support for the United Auto Workers union that it subordinated $6.9 billion in Chrysler bonds. Under legal standards, the bondholders would be paid first in case of a bankruptcy, but Mr. Obama ignored the law.  He accused the bondholders of being “speculators” because they had loaned Chrysler almost $7 billion, and accused them of “refusing to cooperate.”  This browbeating and intimidation cost people who invested in the company through bonds almost $5 billion; the income from these bonds constituted retirement money for many of these people. 

The President forced them to accept $2 billion on the bondholders’ investment of $6.9.  Then he gave 55% of Chrysler Corporation to the UAW, and demanded that the company be brought into the Fiat Corporation, an Italian auto manufacturer.  By violating the law and not permitting a bankruptcy, Mr. Obama was able to transfer $billions from investors and bondholders to the unions. 

Intimidation and theft of Chrysler dealerships

As the deal with Fiat was put together, administration officials targeted Chrysler dealerships that were to be closed.  Although never admitted to by the administration the list of owners who were targeted to lose their dealerships were owners who had donated to the GOP, to conservative causes in general; and even included those who had previously supported John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. 

The administration made these decisions based on political affiliation, not on the dealerships that had run successful Chrysler dealerships.  This deal was absolutely corrupt, and was designed to punish those who politically do not support Mr. Obama and use their money to reward those who do. 

Intimidation of Arizona State University by threatening IRS audits

At a commencement speech at Arizona State University, Mr. Obama noted that A.S.U. had refused to give him an honorary degree because of his lack of executive experience and the debate about it during the campaign.  Mr. Obama followed this statement by saying, “I really thought this was much ado about nothing.  But I do think we all learned an important lesson.  I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets…President Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS. 

No doubt he meant this as a joke, but when you’re the president and you can make it happen, you don’t joke about it – especially when you have a reputation for taking a gun to a knife fight.  The mafia don is asking, “How are the wife and kids?”

Intimidation of the nation’s physicians

As the health care debate dragged on, Mr. Obama wanted to intimidate doctors who will bill Medicare and Medicaid for services rendered into supporting his government operated health care plans.

He made a speech in which he said the government needs to act on his plan because doctors would rather remove a child’s tonsils than treat an infection because they make more money for the surgery.

He gave another example of the importance of government taking over health care by suggesting that doctors would rather delay treatment of diabetes, because they could make more money later by amputating a patient’s foot.  Then he went on to suggest that the doctor stood to make $25,000, to $50,000 for the amputation rather than the $750 to $1,200 they are really paid.

Physicians who desire a different approach to providing health care than Mr. Obama wants can expect outrageous denunciations that they are greedy, have no interest in their patients, and are unworthy parasites who must be brought to heel by government bureaucrats.  Post partisan indeed. 

Intimidation Carrie Prejean

Along the way, Carrie Prejean won the Miss California USA pageant, and was runner-up for the Miss USA crown.

You will remember that during the final event, an ardently and publically gay pageant judge asked Miss. Prejean about gay marriage.  She said she harbored no animus toward gays, but preferred traditional marriage.  Instant outrage ensued.

She became the runner-up when most everyone thought she would win the pageant.  Immediately she became the object of opprobrium from the leftists in the country, called despicable names, and was ultimately stripped of her Miss California USA crown. 

The top political advisor to Mr. Obama, David Axelrod, said during an (tax subsidized) NPR interview that Carrie Prejean was one of 3 finalists for the Obama family dog.  The audience roared with laughter and cheers.  No one is immune to the poison and vitriol and abuse the Obama administration will heap on those they perceive as not supporting their political positions.  This is just great; Mr. Obama’s henchman beating up a Miss USA contestant.  No one is safe. 

Intimidation of white police officers

Earlier this year when Henry Louis Gates arrived home from a trip abroad, he couldn’t find his keys.  He and his escort – both black men – began trying to break through the front door of Mr. Gates’ house. 

A neighbor seeing two men attempting to break into a home called the Cambridge police.  When the officers arrived, the door was open and they thought a burglary or home invasion was in progress.

They entered the home and encountered Mr. Gates.  Not knowing who he was, they demanded ID.  He refused and told them to leave.

Thinking there may be a hostage held elsewhere in the home, the officers (one of them a black officer) asked Mr. Gates to come out on the front porch.  Mr. Gates began berating the officers accusing them of being bigots and racists, abusing their power, pushing around a black man. 

The argument continued with Mr. Gates refusing to identify himself.  The officers then took Mr. Gates out on the porch while he continued to berate the officers.  By now, they had secured the home and identified Mr. Gates, but he was arrested for disturbing the peace because of his insistent yelling at the officers calling them racists, calling Officer Crowley’s mother a :bitch,” and telling them, “You don’t know who you’re messing with.” 

Mr. Gates is a friend of Mr. Obama.  Upon hearing about the arrest and then being asked publically about it Mr. Obama said he didn’t know much about it.  “But I think it’s fair to say No. 1 any of us would be pretty angry.  Number 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”  

Apparently Mr. Obama doesn’t need to know much about a thing to have an already strong pre-formed opinion about it.  Harboring racist thoughts in his own heart, Mr. Obama’s prior assumption is that a white officer arresting a black man is prima facie evidence of racism.  This was a clumsy attempt to intimidate white police officers on the part of the president. 

Intimidation of Fox News

Mr. Obama has always had animus toward Fox News because the reporters at the company have attempted to be fair and balanced; and we know that Mr. Obama supports only unfair and out of balance news organizations that support his political positions.  Besides the news segments, Fox also has opinion shows – but so do the favored networks, like leftists Larry King on CNN, or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.  An opinion show is designed to express opinions regarding facts, not just the facts themselves like the news segments do.  Some of the opinion show hosts on Fox are decidedly not in sync with the Obama agenda; for that reason the administration recently launched a dangerous attack against Fox news. 

Administration officials have stated that Fox News – more than twice as popular as any other two cable news organizations combined – isn’t a news station at all.  They went on to suggest that other news organizations not follow up on any Fox generated stories like people who are communists, revolutionaries or internationalists; or who support forced abortions in the U.S. or a government takeover of all our uses of energy working in the White House.

This is an open attack to force compliance with the thoughts of Mr. Obama.  No one should listen to any voice that doesn’t support him; no one should be permitted to produce information that opposes him.  Everyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader must to vilified, denounced, ridiculed, and stopped.  “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It.”

Attempting to intimidate Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

Rush Limbaugh who is a syndicated talk show host whose show would be listed on any station’s format as “entertainment,” has long been the object of scorn from the Democrat Party.  Democrat politicians are operating on the assumption that they have the right to express their opinions, but unless you agree with them, you don’t have the right to express yours. 

Lately Glenn Beck, a private individual, has become an object of Obama intimidation for outing the Obama administration’s ‘Green Jobs Czar’ Van Jones as a ‘truther.’  That is, Jones believes President George Bush conspired with Osama bin Laden to create the attacks on 9/11 resulting in the murder of 3,000 American citizens.  Beck also showed film where Jones announced that he himself was a communist.  

He didn’t apologize for the horror of permitting Van Jones to become responsible for $billions of tax dollars without realizing he was a communist.  No, Mr. Obama obviously knows Mr. Jones’ political commitments so he cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war against Mr. Beck. 

Again Mr. Obama is demonstrating that he opposes our Constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press, and by extension, broadcast media; and makes no apology whatsoever for his intention to ignore the law. 

Intimidation of Senator John Kyl

Arizona Senator John Kyl was critical of Mr. Obama’s ‘Stimulus Plan,” so administration Cabinet Secretaries attempting to intimidate Sen. Kyl sent letters to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  One of them said, “If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to the state, as Senator Kyl suggests,” let us know. 

Correctly, the Arizona Republic newspaper said, “Let’s not mince words here.  The White House is intent on shutting Kyl up…using whatever means necessary.” 

Intimidation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Very recently the Obama administration has tried to intimidate the Chamber of Commerce.  This is a membership group promoting the interests of businesses in the U.S.  Presumably they have insight into what is good for job creation since the member companies together employ tens of millions of Americans.  But Mr. Obama who has never hired an employee he had to pay, and has never even operated a lemonade stand knows better. 

Since the Chamber has opposed Mr. Obama’s health care plan, the president has sent Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett out to dismantle the Chamber by cleaving off important businesses from the positions the Chamber itself has taken.  They have gone directly to IBM, Wal-Mart, Time Warner, Kodak, Amazon, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks in order to try to break the influence of the Chamber of Commerce. 

This is a process of intimidation; Jarrett said, “The question is: does the Chamber really represent the business community the way it used to?  It seems as though their members are disengaging.”  Of course any member business is free to quit the Chamber at any time.  Any process of “disengagement” was the attempt of the Obama administration in their attempt to destroy this private organization that had the nerve to disagree with Mr. Obama. 

Conclusion

We can determine what the new United States will look like by observing the policies he is pursuing.  He is seeking federal government control over: what health care services you will be permitted to have, your banking accounts and the loans you create with any bank; your credit cards, the kind of job you can have, and now how much you will be permitted to earn.  He is seeking control over what constitutes marriage, and your opinions regarding sexual morality.  He is seeking to control what you are permitted to believe about immigration, the Constitution; and what kind of company you can create.  He is seeking to control the temperature of your home, when you can run your dishwasher, and how hot you can have your water.

Considering this collection of concrete and verified instances of intimidation, and vicious cage fighting against private, individual citizens:  a beauty pageant winner, private physicians, constituents attempting to speak to their representatives, entertainers; against political speech by researchers, pro live-loving moms, ordinary supporters of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; against military veterans who have given their all in defense of their country, government employees who are charged with insuring good accounting; against innocent investors, and business owners, and University Presidents; against white police officers in the orderly conduct of their task, leading news outlets, and Republican Senators; the conclusion is inescapable: Mr. Obama is, on the outside, a sophisticated, urbane but committed leftist intent on “transforming” the United States.  

On the inside, there is overwhelming evidence that he is a Chicago thug in the mold of previous Chicago gangsters.  He has surrounded himself with cut-throats; people who play for keeps.  He commissions them to go out to harass, intimidate, browbeat; to call names, to ruin reputations while he publically remains the professorial, reticent, sophisticate.  He publically expresses a sort of benign patience with we lesser mortals who aren’t bright enough to follow his deep reasoning, but on the inside he is an angry man who is willing to steal money dedicated to provide services for the elderly so he can give it to someone else.  If we could remove the practiced smile, we would see Mr. Obama as he is; an angry, jealous, bitter, man with his teeth barred; a man of infinite ego consumed with hubris.  We know this because of the instances I show in this post.  He feigns patient sophistication while he and his gang slit the throat of American cultural and economic history.  The blood of American tradition is squirting out in all directions.  We are dying of cultural exsanguination; and Barack Obama is the assassin.

The only question that remains is, what will you do about stopping his hostile takeover of the United States?  Are you invested so totally in Mr. Obama that you give him every benefit of the doubt?  Can you look honestly at what this man has done since becoming president?  Are you willing to admit the bullying he has done to anyone with the courage to disagree with him?  Are you willing to look squarely into the abyss that Mr. Obama is “transforming” America into?  Are you willing leave behind all that has made this country good and great: the envy of the world; the shining city on the hill for emigrants everywhere?  Consider what our election of Barack Obama will cost the world; and reconsider what politics you support.