Sunday’s Meet the Press was supposedly blessed with the appearance of Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York. An article reporting on Schumer’s appearance described him as being the ‘primary architect of the Democratic message.’
When I read this description of Schumer, I reflected on some of the things I’ve heard Schumer say on various occasions and it all fit together.
During all of the proceedings leading up to the passage of Obamacare, I was watching a news conference where Schumer said that it was up to the government to decide what our inalienable rights will be.
In that interview, Schumer was referring to the Declaration of Independence that says,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
If you look up inalienable rights in a variety of dictionaries, you will discover that they are rights that cannot be interchanged with others, transferred to other or repudiated by anyone except the party who extended the inalienable rights in the first place. In the Declaration of Independence, it clearly states that those inalienable rights were given to us by our Creator.
Anyone who claims that they will determine what our inalienable rights will be is placing themselves in the role of God, since the Declaration of Independence says that they were endowed upon us by our Creator. So according to Senator Schumer, the government is to take the role of God in determining what our inalienable rights will be
If you have been following the Democratic Party for the past few years, it becomes clearly evident that they are playing the role of God in everything they do. They’ve been taking away the rights of American citizens, especially Christian citizens, in virtually every area of life. Under the Democratic theocracy, we are no longer free to speak out for our religious beliefs and we are no longer allowed the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as originally given to us by our creator.
And this all ties in with the long term plan of the Democratic Party to make itself God in establishing a Marxist government of the elite, for the elite and by elite.
Read more: Architect of Democratic Message Wants Government to be God | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/2310/architect-of-democratic-message-wants-government-to-be-god/#ixzz1f7gegVWTAND
Obama’s Winning Election Strategy Revealed
When someone has to use a teleprompter all the time, it’s because he doesn’t believe what he’s reading. The words are not his own. People who know and believe a certain way don’t need notes. You know they believe what they’re saying because the words roll of their tongue. There is passion in their words and fire in their eyes.
President Obama has a love/hate relationship with the presidency. As a Leftist, he believed coming into office that he could change the world by executive fiat. He would speak and the laws would change. It didn’t happen. Sure, he’s gotten some legislation passed, but it’s been hard. He’s not used to hard. You can tell by how much he likes to play. He’s not engaged.
Obama doesn’t have a feel for what America is about. He wasn’t raised in a pro-American environment. He grew up and surrounded himself with Leftists. These people hate America and want it to be relegated to the dustbin of history.
There aren’t enough people in America who fit the Leftist profile to make an easy sweep of Leftist policies. But that’s beginning to change. Daniel Pipes encapsulates what he calls “Obama’s Leftist Conundrum”:
On the one hand, as a Leftist he despises the United States and sees it as a force for ill in the world. On the other, as president, [he] is judged by how well the country fares during his tenure.
Logically, he cannot reconcile the contradiction of these two imperatives: If he wants to be reelected and celebrated as a great leader, he has to forward American interests; but if he wants to implement his preferred policies, he subverts the country and fouls his nest.
This means that if President Obama is to win the presidency again and implement the Leftist worldview that he envisions will bring all of his ideological training to fruition, he has to make an aggressive political decision. He must decide what group of voters will help him further his agenda. Thomas Edsall, surprisingly from the New York Times, writes an insightful article. It’s titled “The Future of the Obama Coalition.”
“For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.”
“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
Presently, we are a 50-50 nation. Fifty percent of voters have no economic skin in the game. Then there are the government employees who depend on taxes to keep them employed. Talk about tax cuts scares them. With revenue down, they will be affected first. Nearly 50 percent of Americans don’t pay a dime in federal taxes. Once we reach a tipping point, that is, once that number goes over 50 percent (it’s around 47 percent), the game is nearly over. It becomes an election of sheep and wolves, and we’re the sheep.
“Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. . . . Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority.”
We’re lunch. Obama understands this very simple principle. He is counting on the wolves to vote en masse while hoping that the sheep will divide their vote.
The Republicans can’t get together on a candidate. This is troublesome. I’m not sure what the answer is. At this point, we’re down to Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Any one of these candidates will turn off a lot of anti-Obama voters. Personally, I think it’s going to come down to Newt versus Mitt.
What we need is a “Contract for 2012.” Before we get to the primary season, each candidate will be called on to sign the contract and take an oath to uphold it. Part of that contract will include a resignation clause. Any violation of the contract’s provision will mean a 30-day resignation window either to change his mind or resign.
Read more: Obama’s Winning Election Strategy Revealed | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/2329/obamas-winning-election-strategy-revealed/#ixzz1f7hJ7J4yAnd
Outrageous: ESPN Sat on Molestation Tape Since 2002
So this assistant basketball coach at Syracuse, this guy — Fine is his name, Bernie Fine — has been accused of sexually molesting boys and students for a whole bunch of years. It turns out that ESPN had a tape since 2002 with evidence. ESPN has sat on evidence for nine years because they say they couldn’t corroborate it. On the tape the guy’s wife cops to it, saying she witnessed it and a ball boy admits it. They say they couldn’t corroborate it. I wonder if the coach’s name had been Paterno if ESPN woulda sat on this for nine years. They’re saying they couldn’t corroborate it.
“Syracuse fired assistant coach Bernie Fine Sunday after a 2002 phone recording emerged in which Fine’s wife told his accuser she was well aware that her husband had molested him. The tape had been in ESPN’s possession since former team ball boy Bobby Davis legally recorded it nearly a decade ago, but the network said it didn’t air it until Sunday, it said, because it didn’t have corroboration. Two other men have also come forward to say Fine molested them since Davis first accused Fine. The accusations became public after Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was fired amid allegations he sexually abused young boys.
“Davis made the tape after a brief talk with police in 2002. His allegations, which he brought to ESPN and the Syracuse Post-Standard at the time, created a journalistic conundrum for both: They didn’t know whether to report accusations that could be incredibly damaging to Fine, or to risk not exposing a child molester. Both news outlets opted not to report on the allegations, they said, because they couldn’t find anyone to support Davis’ account. Neither Davis nor ESPN passed on the tape to Syracuse University officials for an internal investigation of Fine in 2005. Syracuse chancellor Nancy Cantor noted in a statement Sunday that university officials did not have the tape at the time.
AND
Dear Patriot, Many young people made a terrible mistake in 2008 by casting a vote for Barack Obama. With help from the media, the Obama campaign effectively turned an unknown presidential candidate into a pop culture icon. They used art, music, and social networking to attract impressionable young people without ever having to address policy. Frankly, it was cool to support Obama, and when John McCain countered the viral internet video Obama Girl with It’s Raining McCain, it was clear that conservatives were going to lose the under 30 vote badly. I am under 30, and there are a lot of reasons for people in my generation to be frustrated and angry with the economy. When economic conditions force companies to downsize, people my age are usually the first to be let go because we lack seniority. Jobs in industries like construction and manufacturing used to be a great place to launch a career, but the failed policies of our bloated federal government have devastated those industries. The promise of the pop icon Obama is unrealized and his failure is our opportunity to win legions of new youthful voters. A New Voice is the project that can help us reach young people because it isn’t transparent pandering. A New Voice will explain the benefits of conservative ideals using pop culture and social networking. I am looking forward to articulating the benefits of limited government, personal responsibility, and free markets to the people of my generation. This project is long overdue and we need your help to get it off the ground. To fund A New Voice, we need to raise $100,000. This is an opportunity to invest in a long-ignored constituency that could swing the balance of power to our principles. Please help us launch A New Voice by making a generous contribution today! Sincerely, Dustin Stockton Chief Strategist @DustinStockton P.S. Our strength is in numbers. Please help our efforts by forwarding to a friend. And NLRB Rushes to Hold a Union-Friendly Vote Before Recess-Appointed Democrat Departs Obama's NLRB is a champion of labor unions, Republicans charge. (AP Photo/Nick Ut) Designed to ease the process of unionizing a workplace, the changes come as Democratic member Craig Becker's recess appointment expires at the end of the year. The NLRB's lone Republican, Brian Hayes, said the two Democrats on the Board are "committed" to changing the rules before Becker is forced to leave at the end of the current congressional session. "Indeed, I was advised of this fact by the Board's Chairman," Hayes wrote in a November 18 letter to House Education and Workforce Committee chairman Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.). Currently, only three people -- two Democrats and one Republican -- serve on the five-member NLRB because President Obama has not found nominees who would be approved by Senate Republicans. Becker, who was recess-appointed in March 2010 by President Obama, will be forced to leave the Board when Congress adjourns later this year, leaving the NLRB without a quorum needed to vote on proposed changes and labor disputes. The NLRB needs at least three of its five members to be present in order to vote. Becker, a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, is the key third member needed for the Board to take action. The rule to be voted on this week would shorten the overall time between when a union proposes an election and when that election actually takes place, limiting the options employers have to oppose unions' efforts. Currently, unions can petition for an election if they gain the support of 30 percent of the workers they seek to unionize. Employers can challenge this show of support, triggering an investigation by an NLRB regional director -- an un-appointed bureaucrat. Employers also can challenge the rulings of regional directors before the full NLRB prior to an election taking place. Typically, the entire process takes about 56 days to complete, with more than 85 percent of cases being resolved within 100 days. The proposed rule would shorten to as little as 10 to 14 days the period between a union calling an election and the election date. The proposed rule also would defer legal challenges until after the union election has taken place, forcing employers to negotiate with the new union at the same time they are challenging the legality of the election that created it. Other changes would directly aid union organizers in rallying support for unionization among employees. "Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize, or rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer's legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining," Hayes said in his dissent from the NLRB's proposed rule changes in June. The most controversial provision is one that defers a challenge over voter eligibility until after the election has taken place, if the eligibility of less than 20 percent of voters is challenged. In other words, the proposed rule would let up to 20 percent of workers whose eligibility is questioned vote in a union election -- despite the fact that all or some of those workers may have no right to vote in the election at all. The proposed rule also would move company challenges to the election from before the election takes place to afterwards, allowing the election go forward despite an employer's legal challenges. Further, pre-election challenges to a regional director's initial ruling would be banned all together, denying an employer the ability to challenge the initial finding that an election is warranted. The NLRB also would also be empowered to dismiss -- without the possibility of higher court review -- any post-election challenges. This means that all of the legal disputes the new rule would move to the post-election period (such as challenges to a union's support, voter eligibility, etc.) could be summarily dismissed after the new union has been created. Finally, the new rule would require employers to give unions the telephone numbers and email addresses of all employees eligible to vote in an election, greatly aiding a union's efforts to lobby employees to join up. Currently, only names and street addresses are given to the union while employers keep other proprietary information private in the employee's file. Hayes said the proposed changes would give unions a legislative victory by "administrative fiat," and he accused Democrats on the NLRB of playing politics with the nation's labor laws. "Thus, by administrative fiat in lieu of Congressional action, the Board will impose organized labor's much sought-after "quickie election" option, a procedure under which elections will be held in 10 to 21 days from the filing of the petition," he wrote in June. Republicans on the House Labor and Workforce Committee noted that Hayes has said he may boycott Wednesday's meeting, but even if that happens, the two Democrats may proceed with the vote anyway -- despite the absence of a quorum. AND Mattera, Sowell: Barney, Banking and BrothelsX | Inbox X |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
