Who am I?

Read the description, then click on the question mark at

the right to see if you guessed right!

I was born in one country, raised in another.

My father was born in another country.

I was not his only child.

He fathered several children with numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in

me.

My mother died at an early age from cancer.

Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me, I later

wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

My birth records were sketchy.

No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was

widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional

beliefs and didn’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under

scrutiny.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult,

disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.

That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and

I embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.

It was clear to those who read my memoirs, that I had difficulties

accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30’s then, with help behind the

scenes,

I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my

40s.

They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.

I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no

experience in leading a single organization.

Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me, as

though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.

I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.

This bolstered my ego.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country’s foreign policy…

I was very critical of my country in the last war, and seized every

opportunity to bash my country.

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on

the country’s economy.

I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better,

and every poor person would be fed and housed for free.

I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.

It was the free market, banks and corporations.

I decided to start making citizens hate them and, if they became

envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.

I called mine “A People’s Campaign”.

That sounded good to all people.

I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the

traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular

support.

I knew that, if I merely offered the people ‘hope’,together we could

change our country and the world.

So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of

the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include “persecuted minorities”.

My true views were not widely known and I kept them unknown, until

after I became my nation’s leader.

I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found

out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and

examined those people I associated with.

I’m glad they didn’t.

Then I became the most powerful man in the world.

And the world learned the truth.

Who am I?

Find out here

THEIR Playbook

Did you ever ask yourself, “WHAT in hell is he doing??“  This is one theory.

Keeping in mind that “progressives” (Marxists) want power.  Power over anything they can grab.  Also keeping in mind that Obama has shown himself to be a Marxist, his goal is, bluntly put, to collapse this country.  Why?  Once he has the country in chaos, hungry shell-shocked people will take whatever solution he offers (Cloward-Piven Strategy, page 5). 

Using steps from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, he’s plowing ahead.  You will recognize many of them, both in the “Rules” and methods in the “Crisis Strategy” that follows. 

From Newsmax.com, Diane Alden, January 7, 2003:
 
Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky’s real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment ’60s radicals and revolutionaries.
 
Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for ’60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.
 
“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
 

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

 … Alinsky and his followers counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

 Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

 Obama is proud to have learned and taught Alinsky’s methods for community organizing.

 Originally published in 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, a Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.  Alinsky’s rules, which he calls “power tactics”, are listed.  Notes on his rules are in italics.  Pay particular attention to rules 5, 8, 11 and 13:

 RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

 Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

 Sound familiar?  Did you realize, before the current administration how EVIL were the corporations that have fueled the jobs in this country?  How EVIL are wealthy people? 

 Obama is doing his best to divide this country solidly with the “haves” being humbled and their power (wealth) being taken “for the good of all”.  As he taxes us more and more, the number of “haves” grows smaller every day.  Don’t fool yourself; YOU are one of the “haves”!

 RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

 When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.

 Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.  Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.

 You see an example of this taken and used against them accidentally in the “mobs” at the town hall meetings.  You notice that town hall meetings are being replaced by “one-on-one” events and “telephonic town halls”.  It is taking them from a situation outside their experience (angry people – especially conservatives – in large numbers) to a comfort zone.

 RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

 Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

 This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.

 RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

 Historically, Republicans hold the moral and ethical high ground.  So tempt them and then absolutely hammer them with the results, whether the reported issue is true or not. 

 Remember Mark Foley, Republican homosexual Congressman in Florida?  He was accused of sending inappropriate emails to young male pages, and on the say-so of one young man, who led us to believe he was 16 at the time, was hounded out of Congress.  Foley’s a Republican and they are supposed to be moral, so he must go, right?  After all the hoopla and his resignation, it was found out that the page Mark Foley was exchanging emails with was 19 and over the age of consent.  This would be lauded if Mark Foley were a Democrat, but he was politically killed by lies, the Republican book of rules, and much help from the liberal media.

 RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

 It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

 In line with this rule, smirking media talking heads are calling the Tea Party attendees “Tea Baggers” to ridicule them.  “Tea bagging” is a homosexual act.

 This is being used against them in the “Socialism” poster depicting Obama as the Joker.

 RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

 They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.  Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.

 Conservatives, are by nature, well… conservative.  You see them out in force now because they have come to recognize that their whole way of life is at risk.  You don’t/won’t see them laying in the streets to block traffic or handcuffing themselves to fences, they don’t enjoy the attention like the largely immature liberal constituency seem to do (look up “useful idiots” for more on this).  We generally don’t like to make a scene, that’s why Obama should be paying VERY close attention to these Tea Parties.  We aren’t having fun, the fact that they are so well attended means he’s got one pissed-off population!

 RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

 Don’t become old news.  Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.

 Ever notice how a “traditional protest” has something of a party atmosphere?  Got to have fun!

 RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

 Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

 Boy, are we seeing THIS one!  It’s something new every day!  We are fighting against them taking over our health care while they are working on food rules that need to be countered, cap and trade, and another (bigger) “stimulus” bill.

 Recall Rahm Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff) saying, “Never let a good crisis go to waste!”

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

 Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

 RULE 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

 This ties in with Rule 11.  He wants a violent outburst from … anyone… so he can do… something.  Martial law, perhaps?  Gun grab, perhaps?

 RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

 Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

 THIS is what he’s trying to do with some of the push-push-push.  Union thugs beat up a man the other night.  They are pushing people around.  How long before someone defends themselves with a weapon?  THEN the union is the underdog.

 RULE 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

 Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.  Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power.

 We MUST learn to use this one against them!

 RULE 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

 Remember how they demonized President Bush?  Remember Joe the Plumber?  Sarah Palin?  The CIA?  Targets picked and polarized.

 They generally go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.  This is cruel, but very effective.  Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.

CLOWARD-PIVEN

 The “Crisis Strategy”

www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org

 Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

 First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

 Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

 In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

 The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

 The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.”  Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”

 Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution,” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all — working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

 This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

 Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven’s article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

 Regarding Wiley’s tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, “There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests – and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones.  “These methods proved effective.  ”The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams,” writes Sol Stern in the City Journal.  “From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy.  “As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

 The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York’s welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in “the end of welfare as we know it” — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

 Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. “This wasn’t an accident,” Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. “It wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare.”

 Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

 In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new “voting rights movement,” which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new “voting rights” movement was led by veterans of George Wiley’s welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

 All three of these organizations — ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE — set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with “dead  wood” — invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people — thus opening the door to the unprecedented  levels of voter fraud and “voter disenfranchisement” claims that followed in subsequent elections.

 The new “voting rights” coalition combines mass voter registration drives — typically featuring high levels of fraud — with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of “racism” and “disenfranchisement,” and “direct action” (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America’s welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation’s understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries. 

 Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros’s Open Society Institute and his “Shadow Party,” through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left’s most ambitious campaigns.

For Release: August 7, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or e-mail dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Black Activists Call on Obama to Condemn Race-Baiting Tactics in Health Care Debate 

Washington D.C. The Project 21 black leadership network is condemning New York Times liberal columnist Paul Krugman for scurrilously pinning racist motives on critics of President Obama’s health care proposals. The group is calling upon President Obama to condemn all efforts to derail legitimate public debate, specifically including this effort to stifle debate with race-baiting tactics.

“Paul Krugman is the one with race on the brain,” Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie charged. “Specifically, he is using race in the lowest and most repulsive declinations. He is using it because every other argument to stem the growing tide of condemnation for the proposed health care reform bill has failed. Ergo, when all else fails, parade out the race card and attempt to incite blacks into becoming the useful idiots.”

“Opposition to the proposed health care bill isn’t based on race,” Massie added. “It is based on a people who are tired of Congress and the President spitting in their faces. It is the collective resolve of a people who are tired of being tread upon. One would think a Nobel prize-winner such as Krugman could figure that out.”

Krugman’s racial comments generated outrage from many Project 21 members, including:

Joe Hicks (Los Angeles, California):

“I must have somehow missed the articles from Krugman and other liberal and leftist members of the mainstream media that were critical of the activities of ACORN – the radical, leftist group Barack Obama once represented. Somehow, their heavy-handed activities – that many argue bent the boundaries of legality – were just considered to be the organized expression of disadvantaged communities.”

Now the same shameless, clueless writers are trying to convince us that those Americans who rightfully feel threatened by government-run health care and confront Obama’s noxious scheme at public forums are somehow the acts of a ‘mob.’ Krugman reveals his bias by admitting that people are genuinely angry without bringing himself to understand exactly why they are mad. Smearing the rightful anger and concern of everyday Americans as collections of angry, old white folks – or part of the ‘birthers’ movement – shows the elitist disdain that liberal journalists such as Krugman have for democracy in action.”

Joe Hicks is a Pajamas Television commentator and vice president of Community Advocates, Inc. of Los Angeles. He is a former executive director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission and former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Deneen Borelli (East Chester, New York):

“Krugman’s commentary shows he is as out of touch as many of our elected officials are with real Americans. What’s happening at town hall meetings has nothing to do with race and everything to do with concern over the rapid expansion of government.”

Americans are frustrated that letters, phone calls and e-mails to their elected representatives have had no impact on significant pieces of legislation such as cap-and-trade and stimulus spending. Americans are taking the next logical step by directly voicing their opinions to their representatives at town hall meetings.”

Deneen Borelli is a full-time fellow with Project 21. She serves on the board of Trustees of The Opportunity Charter School in Harlem, New York and previously served as Manager of Media Relations with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).

Bishop Council Nedd II (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania):

“I have nothing to do with the ‘birther’ issue, but I do have concerns about health care. So do the people in my parishes and in the local diner where I eat every day. Living in central Pennsylvania, these truly are the people portrayed in the Norman Rockwell painting about freedom of speech that Krugman reference in his column. To imply these people are now racists is racist in itself.

Approximately half of the U.S. population didn’t vote for Obama in the first place. Why is Krugman shocked that there is opposition to the Obama health care plan, and that people dare to voice their concern at public meetings? The Obama plan inserts government officials into end-of-life decisions for seniors and those among us with the least. That is not a race issue, that is a privacy issue. The Obama plan has given a whole new meaning to the idea of government for the people. This health plan is a bitter pill shoved down people’s throat against their will.

Council Nedd is an Anglican bishop serving the Diocese of the Chesapeake.

Bob Parks (Athol, Massachusetts):

“Why is it when liberals want to make their points, their knee-jerk reaction is to go racial? Paul Krugman is supposedly a journalist. Before throwing out the race card while speculating, he should give us some attributed quotes. Minus that, what he thinks is irrelevant.”

Bob Parks is a Project 21 member and media commentator. He runs the Black and Right website.

Jimmie Hollis (Millville, New Jersey):

“I knew the moment Obama became a presidential candidate that anyone disagreeing with him would be called a racist, and that any opposition to his political views would be seen as racism. The left has always played the race card because it works.”

But I am nonetheless happy to see that people on the right and many in the middle are now beginning to speaking out firmly and with passion against policies they oppose. President Obama should speak out and condemn Paul Krugman racial commentary.”

Jimmie L. Hollis is a Project 21 member and is retired from the U.S. Air Force, in which he served from 1962-1987.

Geoffrey Moore (Chicago, Illinois):

“This is not about race. It is about government control. The system is not perfect, but there is no need to have the government take over control of the entire health care system. The government has not demonstrated the ability to efficiently control costs and provide good service.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who are not up in arms about their insurance. There are people who are somewhat pleased with the coverage they have. The government getting involved will create enormous expense and waste, while creating more problems than they intend to solve.”

Geoffrey Moore is a Project 21 member and marketing analyst in Chicago.

In his Times commentary, “The Town Hall Mob,” available at http://tw9.us/G2, Krugman wrote:

[T]he driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship… And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.

Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.

Many people hoped that last year’s election would mark the end of the “angry white voter” era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization supported by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

August 6, 2009 | By Amanda Reinecker

The national deficit stands at an unprecedented $1.845 trillion. President Barack Obama’s proposed budget would increase spending by an additional $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And that doesn’t take into account Congress’ proposed $1 trillion takeover of the health care system.

With all this spending, millions of Americans are left wondering who’s going to pay for it all.

The answer: Taxpayers, big and small.

The President has repeatedly reiterated his campaign promise that he can rein in the deficit without levying any new taxes on the middle class. Instead, he proposes to saddle the wealthy with the bulk of the burden of increased spending by hiking taxes to where they were before the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. This would bring the top federal tax rate to almost 40 percent, not counting the proposed surtax on high-income earners to fund the health care plan.

Despite the President’s insistence that he remains “clearly committed” to his campaign promise, Heritage tax policy expert Curtis Dubay points out how the middle class could end up paying anyway:

We’ve heard taxes proposed on sugary drinks and alcoholic drinks. Of course, middle-class people purchase those items. Let’s not forget that the cap-and-trade program pushed heavily by President Obama falls on anyone who uses electricity, so that obviously hits the middle-class as well. And one of the first actions that President Obama took as President was to increase the cigarette tax by a dollar a pack. And of course, middle- and low-income people are hit heavily by that tax as well.

In another analysis, Dubay argues that the Left’s soak-the-rich approach will only dig the economy deeper into recession by discouraging investors and entrepreneurs from entering the market. This will “negatively affect long-term economic growth because businesses that otherwise would have been created and added jobs to the economy will never get off the starting blocks.”

Furthermore, these taxes alone would not generate enough to account for the massive spending increases. And the middle class could pay the price.

“You just can’t borrow a trillion dollars for an economic stimulus, enact a new trillion dollar health care entitlement, and increase discretionary spending by 12% through 2019 (including doubling federal education spending), and then expect to pay for it all by taxing the most productive Americans,” writes Heritage’s Conn Carroll in the Morning Bell.

There are lots of mythical benefits from tax increases, yet the Left seems determined to learn their lesson the hard way—during a recession, no less.

There is an alternative. Dubay outlines ways in which the President and Congress could cut spending and taxes, foster individual enterprise and ultimately spur significant economic growth. Otherwise, he says, we’re just “hurting the economy at a time when the U.S. can least afford further damage.”

Five questions to ask your Congressmen on health care

As members of Congress break for their August recess, many have planned to host town hall discussions on health care. “This country deserves a respectful, honest debate about health care,” Conn Carroll writes in The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell. “And the hundreds of town halls members of Congress will be hosting across the country this August are just the place for these conversations to happen.”

» FreedomWorks has compiled a list of town hall meetings. Find a meeting near you.

To help concerned citizens prepare for the town hall discussions, The Heritage Foundation has constructed a list of five important questions that the proposal’s proponents need to answer.

1. Can you promise me that I will not lose my current plan and doctor?

1. Will members of Congress enroll in the public plan?

1. Can you guarantee that Obamacare will not lead to higher deficits in the long term?

1. Will there be rationing of health care for patients on the public plan?

1. Can you promise that my tax dollars will not fund abortions?

» Get talking points, in-depth analysis and more on Heritage’s rapid response page

The heated town hall meetings of the past week have already demonstrated the broad public opposition to big-government health care. As one University of Pennsylvania professor tells Politico, this movement could present a political problem for the Left. “If this comes down to vocal individuals, the Obama campaign ought to be able to always outnumber their opponent. And if they’re not, then that’s a problem.”

Host a 33 Minutes screening

You can host a screening of Heritage’s feature-length documentary on missile defense, 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age.

The threat to America hasn’t changed, nor has the need to defend the American people. Yet the Obama Administration plans to significantly cut and roll back a missile defense plan that has been in place for years to protect us–without having a serious national discussion on this issue. The Heritage Foundation is working get this discussion back on the table and you can help by hosting a screening of our film. We’ll supply you with all the materials you need to host an effective, informative and enjoyable event.

   » Watch the 33 Minutes trailer and apply to host a screening

> Other Heritage work of note

• The Heritage Foundation has been a strong presence in the health care debates. In July alone, our experts conducted over 130 television and radio interviews on health care, while our FixHealthCarePolicy.com Web site has become a go-to resource for lawmakers and the media.

• Unlike so much of the rest of the world, America “inherited a framework for resolving our differences according to shared principles and practices of constitutional government,” writes Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall. Unfortunately, these principles are often misused and disregarded, endangering our nation’s ability to address these differences, explains Marshall, who oversees Heritage’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society. These “cultural minefields” manifest themselves today in debates over school choice and public health care, where progressive proposals threaten an individual’s freedom to support only those causes they believe in.

• During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama promised a better foreign policy in Latin America. However, Heritage foreign policy expert Peter Brookes condemns the administration’s “‘Have a Coke and Smile’ brand of foreign policy.” This policy has led to increasingly strained relations south of the border, while the likes of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez continue to build anti-American coalitions.

• “[Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates’ approach to the defense authorization bill recently pushed through Congress is riddled with ‘old think,’” writes Heritage homeland security expert James Carafano in an article for the Washington Examiner. The defense plan reflects the Cold War philosophy that America’s enemies are “predictable” and therefore easily written into the defense budget. But this doesn’t account for unexpected and potentially more sophisticated attacks. “Enemies who really want to kill you prepare for the kinds of battles that you don’t want to [or aren't prepared to] fight,” Carafano warns

> In other news

• The Senate has confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, 68-31, making her the first Hispanic on the high court.

• The House of Representatives has endorsed, and the Senate is expected to pass, a $2 billion extension of the “cash for clunkers” spending program. Under the program, Americans who buy certain government-approved cars are given up to $4,500 to destroy their used cars.

• The courts are again getting involved in policies properly left to lawmakers, in this case public safety and spending. Citing the need to improve prisoner health, “a panel of federal judges ordered the California prison system on Tuesday to reduce its inmate population.”

• Russian nuclear submarines have recently been spotted off the American coast for the first time in more than a decade.

• The abortion battle may again be decisive politically as more information comes to light about the President’s public health care plan. Many socially-conservative liberal lawmakers would hesitate to support the legislation if the final version expands public support for abortions.

> Coming up at Heritage

To attend these or any other events at Heritage please RSVP at Heritage’s website. Or you can view these events live online. All times are Eastern.

• On Monday, August 10 at noon, Heritage will screen the new documentary Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous than Global Warming Itself.

Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.

Larry Schweikart

Take a look at what actually is in the Health Care bill. Obama makes disingenuous comments like "You’ll still keep your doctor" or "You’ll keep your existing health care." He is either lying to us or he has no idea what is in it. Take a peek at the full report, or look at some of the highlights here:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure. Can you imagine what that will do to small businesses? Every one will abandon “self insurance” and go on Government insurance. So when Obama says that there will still be private health care, it’s simply a lie: this mandate will force employers to abandon their private plans.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED! (We all knew this, because health care is rationed in Canada and Britain, but Obama kept saying it would not be).

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You will have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Government will ration your Healthcare!

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example – Translation for illegal aliens.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – your Health care WILL be rationed.

-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ AMA – The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who don’t provide public option pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC – "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors – doesn’t matter what specialty – will all be paid the same.

PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

PG 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission – Government will penalize you.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion – Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures which of course forces health care rationing.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc., forcing people into Government plan.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. HC by phone.

 PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients’ health deteriorates.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services/Non profit orgs. (ACORN Medical Services here?)

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into our marriages.

Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services. You’d better speak up now before you are on the "advanced care consultation" list.

Recently I had a talk with a colleague (one on my side of the aisle) about the increasingly dire threat posed to this country by the unholy trinity of Obama/Reid-Pelosi/ and the media. The upshot of this person’s question to me was, "What can you say that will give me some hope? Some optimism? Is there a way we can reach the kids, the students, and the younger people?"

We aren’t quite "done" yet, but the old thermometer is edging up by the day, and I don’t mean global warming. Cap and Trade (i.e., "cap and tax") has passed the House and our hopes of avoiding federal enviro-nazis swooping into our homes and clamping down "do not sell" restrictions on our houses until we comply with their inane regulations hangs on the votes of a few left-wing Democrat senators who in the past have shown no inclination to challenge Harry Reid. (You see, the Democrat Party has this habit of actually punishing so-called "mavericks" who criticize Dem leadership.) Real-life Gong-Show refugees such as Al Franken now will vote on your right to drive what you want and eat what you want. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

There is new twitter about the C02 pollution of computers. Once the computer becomes the next SUV, what sites, exactly, do you think will be deemed the most "polluting?" You got it: Drudge, FreeRepublic; Redstate; and a host of conservative sites. Guess which ones will be ok? Huffington Post, MSNBC, and Daily Kos.

But it gets worse: the National Socialist (that would be Nazi, if you were in Germany) Health Care system that is now about to come up for a vote will absolutely eliminate private health care options. Do not kid yourself: They are going to say that they aren’t going to interfere with your right to go to your "own doctor" or have your own "private health insurance." But there won’t be non-government doctors or private health insurance if the government mandates them out of existence.

Do not forget that this was a major goal of Hillarycare just 15 years ago. Once people found out, it caused a firestorm – but times have changed. The media was atrocious then, but it’s a 100 percent propaganda machine for the Left today. A few holdouts, such as Fox and Rush, remind me of the brave Dutch shouting at the storm troopers before they were gunned down. If Health Care or Cap and Tax fail, the media will see it as the failure of their guy, and in their view, Obama must not be allowed to fail.

Even still, I hear people who want to "get past all this partisanship." Sorry, but GROW UP.

Our system from the beginning has pitted one group against another out of fear of the very giant government that is metastasizing before our eyes. James Madison didn’t like "parties" or "factions," but he finally admitted that they were absolutely necessary to fragment power. In Washington today, however, we nearly have one political party: the Democrats, who march in lock step with Obama while the cowardly Republicans who, aside from a few heroes (John Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint come to mind in the Senate, and most of those remaining in the House), are merely "me-too Democrats."

For our system to work there has to be a clear choice, not a mushy middle, because the mushy middle always, always, always gravitates left. There is a "presumption of power" on the left –conservatives, by nature, do not like government, don’t trust it, and do not want to use it to advance their ends, which they see as advanced through liberty, individual achievement, and entrepreneurship.

If Republicans do not unite 100 percent –and soon – behind the idea that the unholy trinity must be stopped dead or we will not have the American Republic that we have all known all our lives, it may soon be too late. Maybe it’s time all of you got just a little mad.

 FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Larry Schweikart is the author o  48 Liberal Lies About American History: (That You Probably Learned in School) and A Patriot’s History of the United States: From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror.   He blogs at patriotshistoryusa.blogspot.com.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3815/pub_detail.asp

by: Deidre Almstead, June 16, 2009

Katie Brickell’s new life as a twenty-five-year old newly-wed was all but completely halted when she discovered she had cervical cancer, with only a few years left to live. Her hope for survival was placed in receiving cancer treatments through the United Kingdom’s government-run health care system.

Katie claims that her cancer could have been prevented or at least identified at an earlier stage had she been allowed a pap-smear, a common screening test for cervical cancer. Now all Katie can do is to continue to fight for the health care she needs, and dream of the lost life where she and her husband could “have children naturally.”

Katie’s story as well as the testimonies of many others were documented in a film produced by Conservatives for Patient’s Rights, a non-profit organization pushing for the establishment of a free market health care system. Americans for Tax Reform played host to a June 3rd screening of this documentary, followed by a discussion of the current and future health care structures in the United States.

The Obama Administration, in its passage of the stimulus package, created many government organizations and programs similar to those present in the Canadian and British single-payer health care systems. The appointment of Dr. David Blumenthal as the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology assisted with the formation of a national, governmentally-run database housing the medical records of all Americans. In addition to this formation, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCCCR) was established to “help coordinate research and guide investments in comparative effectiveness research funded by the Recovery Act.” …

(Excerpt) Read more at campusreportonline.net …

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

Developing…
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

The LA Times:

President Obama should just join the cast of “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!” It’s not that farfetched; he’s been on everything else.

The president is on TV more than the ShamWow guy, but I want to see a little more action. I’m still a fan, but there’s a fine line between being transparent and being overexposed. Every time you turn on the TV, there’s Obama. He’s getting a puppy! He’s eating a cheeseburger with Joe Biden! He’s taking the wife to Broadway and Paris — this is the best season of “The Bachelor” yet!

I get it: You love being on TV. I love my bong, but I take it out of my mouth every once in a while. The other day, I caught myself saying to a friend, “Don’t tell me if he’s fixed the economy yet, I’m Tivo-ing it.”

Remember during the campaign when John McCain attacked Obama for acting like a celebrity and we all laughed at the grumpy old shellshocked fool? Well, it turns out he was right. Sorry, senator. I’m sending a nice gift basket of high-fiber muffins your way.

It’s getting to where you can’t turn on your TV without seeing Obama. Who does he think he is, Dick Cheney? Come on, sir, you don’t have to be on television every minute of every day. You’re the president, not a rerun of “Law and Order.” Save some charisma for a rainy day. Taking strangers from a TV show on a tour of your house? We have that show; it’s called “Cribs.” And letting reporters ask you questions like “You like to be the one who picks out the shaving cream, don’t you?” Or as it’s called today, “journalism.” I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw him take Brian Williams into his bedroom, and at the end of the bed there was a teleprompter and it said, “Who’s your daddy?”

I mean, selling the personal part to stay popular, I’m all for it, but you got us already. We like you, we really like you! You’re skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady. But so’s Lindsay Lohan. And like Lohan, we see your name in the paper a lot, but we’re kind of wondering when you’re actually going to do something.

I know that’s harsh. But when I read about how you sat on the sidelines while bailed-out banks used the money we gave them to hire lobbyists who got Congress to stop homeowners from getting renegotiated loans, or how Congress is already giving up on healthcare reform, or how scientists say it’s essential to reduce CO2 by 40% in 10 years, but your own bill calls for 4%, I say, enough with the character development, let’s get on with the plot.

And let’s stop worrying so much about doing anything that might tarnish the brand. See, this is why I don’t want my president to be a TV star: Because TV stars are too worried about being popular — and too concerned with getting renewed.

You can relax about that, Mr. President, knowing that there’s a large, rich organization doing everything it possibly can to ensure that you’ll get reelected: It’s called the Republican Party.

Speaking of which, if you can’t beat Republicans now, when they’re so down they take orders from Rush Limbaugh, then when? The way to get renewed for your reality show that you love so much is to act boldly now.

Obama needs to start putting it on the line in fights against the banks, the energy companies and the healthcare industry. I never thought I’d say this, but he needs to be more like George W. Bush. Bush was all about, “You’re with us or against us.”

Obama’s more like, “You’re either with us, or you obviously need to see another picture of this adorable puppy!”

Bush had horrible ideas, like torture and deregulation and preemptive war and tax cuts for the rich, but he pushed them through, in their full measure, never mind Congress or the Constitution or the Geneva Convention or the Magna Carta or the Code of Hammurabi.

The point is, he didn’t care if it made him unpopular with every human on the planet not named Cletus or Fred Barnes. Which it did.

And we need to marry the good ideas Obama really believes in with that Bush attitude and Bush certitude. I’d love for Obama to come out one day and say, “Jesus told me to fix healthcare.” Or, “History will decide whether stopping the polar ice caps from melting and drowning us all was a good thing.”

In conclusion, Bush was a jerk, but he never cared about being seen having a burger with Dick Cheney. He picked up the phone in the White House and said, “I’m the president, bring me a burger.” And they’d say, “Sir, this is NORAD. Would you please stop ordering burgers with the red phone?”

I’m glad that Obama is president, but the “Audacity of Hope” part is over. Right now, I’m hoping for a little more audacity.

Bill Maher is the host of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

This is Obama guncontrol by secrecy.

Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. 
This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. 
We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program. 
Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the radar. 
To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. 


Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: 

..It is registered 
.You are fingerprinted 
.You supply a current Driver’s License 
.You supply your Social Security # 
.You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing 
.Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
- Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

.There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. 

The Government would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison. 

If you think this is a joke – go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this.. 
http://www.opencong ress.org/ bill/111- h45/text

It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the wordalong.

FAILURE TO DO SO AT YOUR PERIL!

Any hunters in your family – pass this along.

Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning.

He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and “spring into action”.

Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.. 

This is just a “termite” approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense – chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.

This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

The Second Amendment… .America’s original homeland security