Saul Alinsky

Mitch McConnell Speaks at CPAC

by Bill O'Connell on February 10, 2012

Share and Recommend:

To many conservatives Mitch McConnell is a sellout. To me, he is a parliamentary master who held off a filibuster-proof majority by his fingernails until reinforcements arrived in the person of Scott Brown. He kicked off his address to the crowd with a little humor.

[click to continue…]

Share and Recommend:

The Buffett Rule Lie

by Bill O'Connell on September 20, 2011

Share and Recommend:


When  does the decent interval end? When does the clock run out on giving the president the benefit of the doubt and when is it time to call it as you see it, no holds barred?

Click to read more

Share and Recommend:

It’s the Spending, Stupid!

by Bill O'Connell on April 14, 2011

Share and Recommend:

To no one’s surprise, President Obama followed his lame first attempt at a budget with the same tired class warfare “taxing the rich is the solution plan”. The problem is spending. This problem is not going to get fixed until we: a) stop spending more; b) start spending less; and c) spend less than we take in until the debt is paid off. Yes, I said paid off. We are the wealthiest country on earth. We should be able to live within our means and not have to borrow to keep a bloated, inefficient, unaccountable government in Washington growing and growing.

Let’s take a look at the facts. The following three charts show how much of Adjusted Gross Income is earned by the most productive 1%, 5%, and 10% (the blue bars) and what share of total income taxes they pay (the red bars). This is over a twenty year period:


Share of Income vs Share of Tax Burden of Most Productive 1 Percent


Share of Income vs Share of Tax Burden


Share of Income vs Share of Tax Burden of Most Productive 10%


What is clear from all three of these graphs is that over the past twenty years if you look at the trend lines, while the most productive amoung us produced more, the share of the tax load they paid grew even faster. So let’s stop the sleight of hand about how many dollars the changes in tax law affect Mr. Obama personally and let’s be clear, to use Mr. Obama’s favorite phrase, there was no tax cut voted in December, the vote just maintained the status quo. So, Mr. President, level with the American people. Just what percentage of total income taxes do you want the most productive 10% of Americans to carry? Since you feel 70%, the amount they carry today, is not enough, what do you think is fair? 80%? 90%? 100%? Should the most productive 10% of Americans pay all of the income taxes while the other 90% pay none? Stop dancing around and be straight with the American people and tell us how much of the total pie is fair for the most productive to pay?

But we don’t have enough revenue because of the Bush tax cuts, you say. Okay, let’s put that one to rest as well.


Federal Government Revenue over Time


It is clear that the tax revenue collected hit its peak after the Bush tax cuts. They fell off after the start of the recession, which is expected, but it appears they bottomed in 2010 and the Bush rates were extended (not increased, not decreased). It’s the spending, stupid!

Trying to raise more money through raising tax rates runs into Hauser’s Law. As I explain in Liberty’s Lifeline, W. Kurt Hauser looked at eighty years of revenue data and concluded that tax revenues will not exceed 20% of GDP no matter how high the rates. If spending continues at 24% of GDP where it is now, we will be digging a hole out of which we will never escape. It’s the spending, stupid!

Instead of leading, President Obama, came out yesterday with Budget 2.0, and basically made a campaign speech instead of a serious policy statement demonstrating leadership. Here is Charles Krauthammer’s analysis:


President Obama ran for office with the promise of bipartanship. He promised to change the tone in Washington. He has not even been able to change his role from campaigner-in-chief to chief executive and instead has become punter-in-chief. He punted his responsibility to put together a budget to a bipartisan commission. He didn’t like the yucky medicine his commission offered up and so he dismissed their recommendation. He now talks of a new bipartisan commission.

He also likes to follow the instructions of his mentor Saul Alinsky, “pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.” He did it to the members of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address after the Citizens United v FEC decision by calling them out as they sat immobile in front of him. He repeated it yesterday by inviting Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders to this speech and then attacked them.


When I started writing this blog in 2008 it was primarily because I saw the candidate Obama as someone with no executive experience, a few years in the Illinios senate where he voted mostly present, less than a full term as a U.S. Senator before he bailed out to run for president, and the author of a couple of books and I was stunned that people across America actually believed this man, who may be great guy to have a beer with or play a game of basketball or golf, could actually handle the job. Well, as another of his mentors, Reverand Wright, once said, our chickens are coming home to roost. I would much rather have Jimmy Carter sitting in the Oval Office today than this man, and that’s saying something.

It’s about the spending, Mr. President, and if you don’t understand that, wake up Joe Biden and give him a turn at the wheel. It’s time to take your responsibility seriously and make some tough decisions. Right now 2012 is a pipe dream for you.


That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.


Share and Recommend:

NAACP: From Pride to Prejudice

by Bill O'Connell on July 16, 2010

Share and Recommend:


The NAACP was once a proud organization with a noble cause, to advance the lot of people of color.  Today it has abandoned those principles to become just another attack arm of the Democratic Party.  This week they released a resolution condemning racism within the Tea Party movement.

I have been to a number of Tea Party events with hundreds of thousands of peaceful orderly participants and racism was not evident, surprisingly so.  I say surprisingly because with any gathering of that magnitude to have a few fringe elements at either end of the spectrum would almost be expected.  So is it possible there are racist elements at any given event? Sure.  It is routine in the Tea Party?  It is so rare, you have to aggressively search to find it and when you do, what proof is there that they are really Tea Party members or supporters or just some wacko who walked into the crowd with a sign?

Let’s look at the Strategy

The left has tried vainly to paint the Tea Party as racist because that is the most toxic label that they have.  The racist label brings out the black electorate, polarizes  the progressives, mortifies the moderates, and makes conservatives cringe.  If they can make it stick it is very effective.  It is also overused and as such, it is losing its sting.  So how do you make it stick? 

One way is to follow what the NAACP is doing.  Pass a resolution condemning racism and demand the Tea Party repudiate racism in their ranks, which by the way is virtually non-existent.  If you can cow the Tea Party members to take the pledge, then the liberal/progressives  can plant racists at each rally with nasty signs, videotape them and then blame the Tea Party for failing to honor their pledge and thus “proving” racism is in the ranks of the Tea Party and it cannot be eradicated.  This is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Let’s Look at the Facts

This is from the NAACP web site:

“Today, NAACP delegates passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches.”

I was a marshal at the Tea Party rally in New York on April 15th this year.  We were concerned about reports on the street that infiltrators with racist signs might show up to garner media attention, which to that point had been rather thin.  What were we to do?  We couldn’t take their signs away, we couldn’t touch them as they had as much of a right to be there as we did.  We came up with the idea that we would carry signs repudiating the person that our signs pointed to.  We would approach the person, politely, tell them that their sign did not comport with the values of the Tea Party and ask them to put the sign away or leave.  If they did not comply, we would surround them with our signs that said those views of that individual were not consistent with the Tea Party so that any media picking up their sign would see ours as well.  If things got aggressive we would call in the police that were on hand.  To my knowledge we never had to use our tactic as there were no racially offensive signs at the rally.  We did not need a resolution by the NAACP to develop our counter strategy.  It was part of our core beliefs, which puts the big lie to the NAACP’s resolution.

More from the NAACP web site:

“The resolution came after a year of high-profile media coverage of attendees of Tea Party marches using vial, antagonistic racial slurs & images. In March, respected members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by a Washington, DC health care protest. Civil rights legend John Lewis was called the “n-word” in the incident while others in the crowd used ugly anti-gay slurs to describe Congressman Barney Frank, a long-time NAACP supporter and the nation’s first openly gay member of Congress.”

The first part of this passage was almost laughable.  High profile media coverage?  The lame stream media has been trying to bury the Tea Party by not covering them.  What main stream media coverage was there in Washington in September of 2009 where several hundred thousand Tea Partiers rallied?  It was dismissed as a couple of thousand.

Nancy Pelosi’s stunt to march through a crowd of Tea Party members to pass the Obamacare bill, did draw a lot of media attention and controversy.  Show us the money!  Andrew Breitbart put up $100,000 to anyone who could produce any video evidence that the things claimed in the above quote from the NAACP actually happened.  There were media cameras and microphones all over the place, hundreds if not thousands of people with cell phone cameras and miraculously not one of them captured what the NAACP claims happened as fact.  John Lewis was invited on several news programs to give his side of the story and he declined.  Mr. Breitbart is still waiting to write that check.  As Groucho Marx famously said, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?”

NAACP President Ben Jealous had this comment.  “I give a 42-page speech. Half a page is focused on the tea party,” Jealous said. “We need the media to pay attention to the issues that are most important to this country” such as jobs, education, and crime.  Uh, what did you expect sir?  If you wanted the media to pay attention to the other 41 ½ pages of your speech, perhaps you should have dropped to bogus charge against the Tea Party.

I scoured the NAACP web site for any mention of the New Black Panther party and the case against them that was dropped by the Obama Justice Department.  The site lacks a search feature so it made it more of a challenge but I looked through the site’s blog and found nothing.  Now here is a case that is plainly caught on video tape and other video tape is found of King Samir Shabazz, spewing racial epithets and advocating murder of whites or “crackers” and their babies, but we hear nothing about this from the NAACP.

So, we have the NAACP issuing a resolution about alleged racism in the Tea Party for which they have no proof (there are some still pictures on their websites of people holding signs, but no reference to where the pictures were taken or who the sign holders were.  They could have just as easily been a plant to smear the Tea Party).  They ask the Tea Party to pledge to oppose racism, which I have demonstrated that opposing racist messages is standard operating procedure among the Tea Party, but they make no mention of the overt racism among their followers, where that racism is clearly on full display in living color with sound and includes not only racist sentiments but a call to actually murder whites.  This apparently is considered worthy discourse to the NAACP leadership.

I call upon all members of the NAACP who really believe there is no place for racism in America to cancel your membership in the NAACP and join the Tea Party.  We do not tolerate racist messages among our members.  We have many African Americans in prominent positions in the Tea Party and we would have more if you join us.  Our positions to end wasteful government spending and free up our economy will probably do more to advance you and your fellow NAACP members than fighting for the next government program.  The NAACP has run aground on the shoals of petty squabbles to help the Democratic Party.  It’s time to abandon ship and swim for shore.

The above opinions are my own.  I do not speak in an official capacity for the Tea Party.

Share and Recommend:

If Regulations Aren’t Working, Add More Regulations

by Bill O'Connell on April 20, 2010

Share and Recommend:


Democrats think they have a winner.  They want to lather on some more financial regulations because regulators dropped the ball on enforcing what already exists.  So as conservatives point out that what they are proposing is unnecessary or won’t work, they can gleefully say, “Republicans are for the fat cats, while we’re for the little guy.”

Broken Regulations

Harry Markopolos recognized within “minutes” that Bernie Madoff was a fraud.  He took his case to the SEC and was promptly ignored.  He took it to Forbes magazine…not interested.  Bernie Madoff himself was surprised how long it took to be found out. 

So what does the SEC do now?  It initiates a case against Goldman Sachs where professionals on both sides of a transaction knew what they were getting into.  One side bet on housing prices continuing to rise, the other betting the bubble would burst.  The decision on pursuing this was voted 3-2, with three Democrats voting in favor of pursuing the case, and two Republicans voting against.  It must be the Democrats looking out for the little guys and the Republicans looking out for evil Wall Street, right?

John Paulson is the investor who allegedly played unfairly by being able to choose the securities that went into the investment that Goldman Sachs allegedly didn’t disclose to the other party.  Mr. Paulson hasn’t been charged with anything.  Mr. Paulson also contributed $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last June.  If you recall Jon Corzine, former Democratic Senator and Governor of New Jersey, used to be the chairman of Goldman Sachs.  The new head of the SEC enforcement division in the Obama Administration, Adam Storch, is a former Goldman Sachs Vice President.  So who’s in bed with Wall Street? 

Democrats Need a Diversion

With almost every measure of public opinion on government appointment sinking to all time lows, the Democrats need to ramp up the class warfare machine to find anything that will gain traction with the public.  They know they can’t fight on the facts so they have to start the fog machine.  Typical Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals stuff.

Conservatives must focus the debate on the issues and not shrink from the fight.  It is far too easy to show that Big Government (Obama) and Big Business (GE, et al) are really partners in dividing up the spoils amongst themselves and telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

Remembering Reagan

Ronald Reagan famously said that the statists believe:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

There is currently no more telling example of this than Senator Chuck Schumer bloviating about Spirit Air Lines charging passengers for carry on baggage.  He wants to introduce legislation prohibiting this.  Hey, Chuck, if you don’t like Spirit charging you for your carryon bags, pick another airline!  That’s how markets work.  But the genius that is Washington is, NO we have to regulate that!  So the idiots would pass a law prohibiting charging for carryon bags and the airlines will respond by raising ALL ticket prices to compensate.  So instead of my having a choice of carrying a bag on board or saving the money, or choosing another airline altogether, the government will make everything equal and more expensive.

So, Chuck, how are you and your pals doing as far as growing the economy and getting the unemployment rate down?   Maybe you should spend some time on that, no?

Share and Recommend:

Tell Me Again Who The Violent Extremists Are?

by Bill O'Connell on April 7, 2010

Share and Recommend:


Right after the Nancy Pelosi “in your face” parade to the capital to cram ObamaCare into law, the lame stream media filled the airwaves with “news” of those Tea Party Extremists.  They were spitting on a black Congressmen, shouting the “N” word and other ugly things.  In listening to those news stories I pondered the possibility that it was all a page right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.  Make false accusations and let the slobbering media do the heavy lifting.  Well perhaps it’s time to re-visit the scene of the crime.

The Unsubstantiated Claims

  • Spitting on a black Congressman  — video footage shows a man cupping his hands around his mouth to channel the sound energy as he bellowed his opposition to Pelosi and crew.  A black Congressman walking near by learned the true meaning of “say it, don’t spray it.”  Upon being struck with the vocal protesters spittle, the Congressman said something to him, but the man continued to shout his protests.  There was no clear evidence of someone spitting, in the true sense of the word, on the Congressman.  Perhaps you can call it collateral damage.
  • Shouting the “N” word — another individual claimed that the “N” word was shouted at him “at least fifteen times.”  Hundreds of protestors, dozens of cameras, cell phones, police, news media, and no one can produce any evidence to back up this man’s claim.  Esteemed civil rights hero John Lewis was asked to come on several news programs to talk about this but he declined.
  • Threats against Congressmen — reports of voice mail threats, faxes of nooses, bricks through windows, all no doubt happened, but no perpetrator has been caught.  Without out a suspect, this could just as easily been done by a left wing supporter to discredit the right as someone on the right.  Until such time as an individual is questioned there is no way to tie this to any Tea Party affiliation.

The Stubborn Facts

Here are some developing news items that you won’t hear reported in the lame stream media.

  • There was one arrest regarding a death threat of a Congressman.  That was for a threat against Republican Congressman Eric Cantor.
  • The ugly business about protesters at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq.  Members of the Westboro Baptist Church gleefully cheered the death of the brave Marine, saying it was God’s will.  The leader of this movement, Fred Phelps, calls America a “sodomite nation of flag worshiping idolaters.”  He believes all homosexuals should be persecuted.  He has also run for public office five times…as a Democrat.
  • When the Hutaree Militia were arrested while plotting to assassinate a police officer and then kill those who attended his funeral, the lame stream media immediately referred to them as a “Christian” militia and ominously tried to link them to those on the right.  The political affiliation of one of the militia members, Jacob J. Ward has recently been uncovered.  He is a registered Democrat.

Let History Be Your Guide

Having attended several Tea Party gatherings, I can report that they were orderly, law abiding, polite and enthusiastic.  Did some expressions of frustration and outrage go a little too far?  Perhaps, but it was rare and limited to what was written on signs. 

However on the left we have real unrepentant bomb throwers (Obama pal Bill Ayers), we have smashing windows in Seattle, and at WTO meetings, we have tables being overturned and thrown at an Ann Coulter speaking engagement in Ottawa.  When the police show up for a left wing demonstration they typically arrive in riot gear.  At a Tea Party people come up to the mounted police and ask if they can pet the horse.  So when things get ugly, who do you think is really behind the nasty business?

Share and Recommend:

Alinsky Threatens Democrats

by Bill O'Connell on March 25, 2010

Share and Recommend:

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

So reads the opening paragraph of Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals.”  Barack Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky taking his first job out of Columbia as a community organizer in Chicago and tutored by a man named Mike Kruglik.  Kruglig described Obama this way:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.” — “Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu,” American Thinker, January 8, 2008 

Democrats Facing Threats After Passage of Health Care Reform

While wading through a crowd of protesters carrying a massive gavel, Nancy Pelosi was joined by several prominent black Democrats.  A racial epithet was called out from the crowd evoking a reaction from Pelosi’s companions.  The cameras caught the reaction, but not the provocateur.  Neither the police or any news organization caught the individual, but the “main stream media” immediately started linking Tea Party protesters with racism.

In the following days, CNN and others reported threats to Democrats who voted for the health care bill, including a graphic voicemail to Bart Stupak; an anonymous fax picturing a noose was sent to a black Democratic Congressman James Clyburn; Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter reports a brick being thrown through the window of her district office in Niagara Falls, NY.  Very troubling indeed.

Having walked down Pennsylvania Avenue with thousands of Tea Party protesters last year, I can say they were the most orderly, principled, polite, helpful gathering of people you could imagine.  Naturally the “main stream media” reported nothing of this demonstration other than a sign or two that linked this administration to the Nazis.  So was I surprised to see this vitriol suddenly sprout up?  While I could understand the frustration with this arrogant Congress and President ignore the overwhelming will of the people, I still couldn’t grasp them going that far.

When I heard about the broken window in Congresswoman Slaughter’s district office, I thought of other protests with broken glass.  Protesters smashing windows in Seattle at a meeting of the World Trade Organization in 1999.  The G20 summit in Scotland in 2009 had protesters smashing windows.  These violent protesters represent the left, not the right. Hmmm…

Last night in Ottawa, the police cancelled a speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa, because the threat of violence became too great:

After Tuesday night, the hatred incited by Francois’ letter is no longer theoretical. The police called off my speech when the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals—screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm.  

Ms. Coulter received a letter, before her speech, from the provost of the University that she could potentially be criminally liable for hate speech in Canada.  Who else spoke at the University without such admonishment?  How about Communist Angela Davis?  Hmmm…

Rules for Radicals

So what are Saul Alinsky’s instructions to radicals?  Here he outlines the purpose:

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3                               

“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….”

Everything is relative and changing.  Doesn’t that sound like the left’s view of a “living and breathing” Constitution?  The Constitution is not what the Founding Fathers intended when the wrote it, but what the words mean in today’s context.  In other words, there really is no Constitution, because the Constitution means whatever you say it means today.

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.… It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriated weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36

Clothe it with moral garments.  Did the Democrats argue the merits of health care or did they continually fall back to stories of, for example, “a woman who had to wear her dead sister’s dentures,” said Louise Slaughter.  Or, they said that when people were asked about the details of ObamaCare, the public overwhelmingly supported it, so they are not opposed to the whole package.  Really?  I’m sure that if you picked through the programs of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Mao you could get similar reactions: lower unemployment, self-respect, prosperity, etc., but the full package doesn’t work, it’s a lie.

Rules for Radicals: Tactics

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

Can you say racism?  How many times has this trump card been played?  The epithet hurled from the crowd immediately sparked cries of racism and the “main stream media” tied them to the Tea Party protesters.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

The Democrats squeaked through an ugly health care bill.  The next hurdle is to get this far behind them and try to salvage the 2010 election before they are thrown from office.  Recent polls show a significant uptick in Obama’s approval, but it is all coming from Democrats.  Republicans haven’t budget and Independents are even worse.  Hmmm… what do Democrats do now?  Read Rule 13.

Pick the target: The Tea Party protesters are the most energized potent force in politics today.  They must be stopped.  Freeze it:  Have some left wing radicals, maybe some SEIU members mingle among the Tea Party protesters and shout the racial epithets and melt away.    Pelosi’s parade route was known among the Democrats.  They staged it to look like a Civil Rights march from the 1960s.  They knew the media would be there and they could see, once on site, where to stand to be heard by Pelosi & co., but not be caught on camera.  The lap dog media would immediately launch into grave concerns of the Tea Party turning ugly, “as we knew they would.”  Freeze them.

Personalize it.  What is more personal than racism?  How do you defend against a charge of racism?  Polarize it:  Paint the Tea Party as a bunch of hateful, racist, violent rednecks with guns and fair minded people will not want to associate with them.  They will drift away from the Tea Party and in the absence of another group to organize them, they hope these folks will become dejected and not turn out in November, and Nancy Pelosi can dodge a bullet and tighten her grip on the Speaker’s gavel.

Battle Back

The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws.  Press them to find out who did these things.  Put forth the theory that it is the left trying to discredit the Tea Party people.  After all, which is the more plausible explanation, radicals being radicals or law abiding citizens becoming crazed and dangerous?  Make them disprove the case.

This appears more dangerous and grave every day.  It’s eight months to November.  Stay vigilant and don’t let up.

Share and Recommend:

Enemy of the State

by Bill O'Connell on August 6, 2009

Share and Recommend:

Just when you thought this administration had gone about as far as it could go in turning America into the old Soviet Union another subtle clue is revealed.  When you craft legislation that is over a thousand pages long and you try to slam it through before anyone can read it, all kinds of creepy things come crawling out when you turn the lights on.  This is from the White House’s blog:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to”

Turn in your neighbor?  Does this not sound like Cuban block watchers in Castro’s worker’s paradise?  Is your name in their database?  If you apply for a government job, do you think you might run into a “problem”?  Will the IRS come knocking on your door to audit you?  If this doesn’t send chills up your spine, you are made of sterner stuff than me.

What’s really Fishy?

To be fair, everything this administration has said about health care, or is it health insurance, seems fishy?  So should all Americans be writing to the White House to complain?  Be careful, I am sure they are taking the names on both sides of the e-mail.  This Administration wants the First Amendment only to apply to the titan of the teleprompter.  But if you criticize the state, you are Astroturf, an unruly mob, crazed right-wing plants.  When do they send the goons in to break up the crowd and beat a few participants to send them a lesson.

Be Careful Before You Take a Bite Out of that Apple

The administration is touting the Cash for Clunkers program as a great success.  But as the auto dealers file for the rebates they are faced with this {emphasis added}:

“This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, Dot, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

This was widely reported by Glenn Beck and immediately the statists came forth to attack him as a right wing fanatic.  I also saw some insipid posts saying, “well how are they going to be able to do that?  I’ll smack anyone who tries to touch my laptop; that web site is only for the dealers, not for consumers, etc., etc.”  To that I say, read it for yourself and decide.  Perhaps, as some suggest, it was some overly aggressive government lawyer who was trying to protect…  Protect what?  Rebates?

The pattern is shocking and the pattern is clear.  If the government gives you TARP money, the government sets your salary.  If the government bails out and then takes over the car companies, the government will decide what kind of cars it will build and if it loses money for years (Amtrak, the Postal Service), the government can decide to keep them afloat to achieve their agenda.  Keeping all those UAW members on the government teat, will keep their votes in the Democratic column.  Now if you want a rebate, the government owns your computer.  Let’s see, is there any disparaging information about the Obama administration on there?  No rebates for your dealership and we’ll fire off an e-mail to to boot.  And what about that reference to foreign agencies?

Barack Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky and he knows a thing or two organizing and defeating his opponents, not by logic or reason, but by attack and disinformation.  That is how dictators grab power.  Will we be able to do as our Founding Fathers did and stop the spread of this tyranny?  The recent town hall meetings with our legislators give me reason to hope that Americans are paying close attention and do not like what they see.

Share and Recommend:
© 2012 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.