Should we believe White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs when he claimed that President Barack Hussein Obama wouldn’t be watching last night’s election returns? Of course not. Why? Because unless Obama was intrigued by the Bowling Green at Buffalo nail biter, it was a slow TV night – except of course, for the election returns.

OK thinks that like everything else about this administration, what we were told wasn’t what was going on behind the scenes. We think Obama & Co. anticipated last night’s results. In fact, we think several TVs were on inside the White House last night and that Obama checked out election returns with the rest of us. Moreover, we believe what he saw frightened him as much as any scary movie on the tube on Halloween night.

Yesterday’s election returns hammered home what many of us have sensed was brewing the past few months. Last night was the exclamation point of the statement carved by the TEA parties, angry citizens protesting the senseless healthcare bills, the September 12^th D.C. conservative invasion and those who believe the last stimulus bill did about as much good as a fully wired house when the electric company shuts off the juice.

It’s more than a feeling now. It’s a certainty – and it can be summed up in a few words: CONSERVATISM IS ON THE RISE.

More than that, the GOP victories are “a warning shot” as Eric Cantor (R-VA) summed up the Virginia takeover, “and it says to the moderate Democrats in the House that they ought to think twice about continuing to pursue the policies of this White House and (White House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi” (“GOP Gains Could Hurt Obama Political Capital, If Not Agenda,” November 4, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/gop-gains-hurt-obama-capital-agenda/).

Virginia voters gave conservatives throughout the land a triple gift: a new conservative governor (Bob McDonnell), a re-elected conservative lieutenant governor (Bill Bolling) and a conservative attorney general (Ken Cuccinelli). So much for Obama’s star power. The ads he cut for Dem loser Creigh Deeds sounded more like bombastic leftover Obama for Prez sound bytes and didn’t help Deeds at all.

But it may be New Jersey voters who rattled Dems the most. Governor Corzine is out, in spite of slamming challenger Chris Christie for everything from sidestepping ethics laws to being overweight. Christie will be the Garden State’s new helmsman, leaving Corzine to mull over his campaign failure and Obama’s three Corzine campaign visits to Jersey, which did little to help the governor’s cause.

Let’s not forget that even before conservatives stormed the polls, they had already made it clear they’re tired of centrists and those who go the wishy-washy route. Case in point: RINO Dede Scozzafava withdrew from New York’s 23^rd Congressional District race after feeling conservative heat. She then fully exposed her liberal colors by backing Democrat Bill Owens. Although Owens defeated conservative Doug Hoffman, it was good to see Scozzafava buckle under pressure and fully out herself.

We need much more of the true conservatism we witnessed last night – and it’s coming. This is one show to be a part of, a show not to be missed. We predict its ratings will soar in the 2010 season. (Don’t miss any more episodes, Mr. President.)

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De  Los Santos

Pelosi’s Bill: More Sludge in the D.C. Swamp

Yesterday (Oct. 29), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) praised Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) for their help in determining the finances and taxes that will be levied in the new souped-up 1900-page health care bill.  This “Affordable Health Care for America Act” (or H.R .3962) bill has been debated for months. It is a perfect example of liberal lunacy and promises reneged.

Pelosi’s “gargantuan beast of a bill” contains 13 new tax hikes (“Comprehensive List of Taxes in the House Democrat Bill,” atr.org, October 30, 2009). Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) points out, “One thing is clear. Your concerns about a government takeover of health care have been totally ignored by Speaker Pelosi and her allies, who worked behind closed doors to write this bill” (“Government Still Trying to Take Over Health Care,” biggoverment.com, October 30, 2009). Price also notes that Pelosi’s House bill means government-run insurance, higher taxes, a job-killing employer mandate and “countless provisions that set Washington bureaucrats firmly between you and your doctor.”

Oh, and Sarah Palin was right – the provision for death panels or “End-of-Life-Planning” is included in Pelosi’s bill.

She’s Clogging up the Congressional Works – and Rangel Isn’t Helping Things

When she was crowned Queen of the House, Madame Pelosi vowed to drain the D.C. swamp of corruption.  So far, she’s just further clogging up the works. Pelosi also promised, “We Will Create the Most Open and Honest Government in History” in a January 18, 2006¨Press Release (Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, California, 8th District, http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Jan06/honest.html). Is that why Madame Speaker got Charlie Rangel, one of the most corrupt individuals in Washington D.C. to assist her with fact and figures as the new health care bill was drawn up?

The distinguished Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Rangel has been under investigation since the beginning of this year for multiple incidents involving tax evasion and failure to report income.  We’re not talking a few thousand bucks here (like Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner).  Rangel is in deep you-know-what for hiding serious coin.  Peter Roff reports in U.S. News & World Report that “an ongoing investigation into Rangel’s finances reveals he has not been exactly candid with the IRS or, for the matter, his congressional colleagues about his real estate holding, sales of stock and his reportable income” (www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/09/08/for-the-democrats-sake-charles-rangel-must-go.html, May 12, 2009).

Back in May, further questions arose over the lord of the tax code’s conduct. Rangel’s “amended finance disclosure forms for the years 2002 through 2006, include his failure to report checking accounts at the Congressional Federal Credit Union and Merrill Lynch—each valued at between $250,000 and $500,000, tens of thousands of dollars in earning from stock dividends and mutual funds, and the proceeds from the sale of a townhouse back in his Manhattan-based congressional district” (Roff, www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/09/08/for-the-democrats-sake-charles-rangel-must-go.html, May 12, 2009). Yet this is the upstanding numbers man to whom Queen Pelosi turned in her hour of need.

Well, after all, Rangel is himself a big donor to the Democratic Party.

Maxine Waters – Another Inept Tax Plumber

As if Charlie Rangel weren’t enough, Pelosi also got Maxine Waters, a high-ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, to help draft the new hernia-inducing health care monstrosity.  Waters has her own tax disclosure issues. Michelle Malkin “spotlighted” Waters back in March for she and her husband’s “smelly involvement with minority-owned bank called OneUnited” (michellemalkin.com, October 30, 2009). On Thursday (Oct. 29), the House Ethics Committee announced that it is investigating whether “Waters used her influence to help a bank in which her husband owned stock, and whether the couple benefited as a result” (michellemalkin.com, October 30, 2009). Waters’ husband also sits on the bank’s board. What’s more, OneUnited received $12 million dollars in Stimulus bill monies. Barney Frank (D-MA) helped the bank to secure the funds (Kelly Cunnigham, http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=192&SourceCode=20090211tzd, February 11, 2009).

Pelosi+Rangel+Waters = Bad Sewage!

The results of such masterminds concocting a new health care bill are messy.  In fact, even though Pelosi claims the new bill is more streamlined in dollars (if not bulk), it’s potentially more damaging to Americans from the get-go.  If it passes, Americans will start to be taxed immediately in order to pay for it.   Keep in mind that it doesn’t take effect until 2013 (after Obama & Co. have been re-elected – they hope – and there’s nothing to do but suffer the consequences).

Pelosi claims that the $894 Billion dollar bill will insure an additional 36 million Americans.  She also claims that the bill will “cut the deficit by $30 million over 10 years, which means it would meet President Obama's budget requirements. It would also extend coverage to 96 percent of the population. Top Democrats say the numbers are based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, which has yet to formally score the bill” (Jason Plautz, NationalJournal.com, http://healthtopic.nationaljournal.com/2009/10/house-plan-will-cost-894-billi.php, October 30, 2009).

We’re left scratching our heads. What kind of magical numbers-out-of-the hat is Pelosi trying to pull?  Probably the same kind good ol’ Charlie Rangel uses to balance his tax returns.

Need a Plumber? Don’t Call One Named Pelosi!

“Poor Nancy, every time she tries to drain the swamp, she either catches a reflection of herself or she uncovers one of her friends. Drain a little, there's Charley Rangel wallowing in the mud” (chuckthings.blogspot.com, 5/12/09).

It’s all too obvious that Nancy Pelosi meant she was going to strip Republicans – corrupt and otherwise – of power when she boasted she would drain the D.C. swamp.  Liberals need not worry and are encouraged to continue contributing to the muck.

Madame Speaker has proven herself to be a poor sump pump. OK hopes to see major plumbing work – and House cleaning – done in 2010.

It’s been over two months since General McChrystal, our top commander in Afghanistan, put out the call for more troops.  President Barack Hussein Obama continues to hem and haw and hold endless meetings to discuss the issue.  Maybe he’s too busy having parties with J-Lo and friends, compiling his enemies list, pushing healthcare, playing B ball and campaigning for fellow Dems to worry about such trivialities as warfare.  Meanwhile, things get worse abroad and more of our soldiers are paying the highest of price for an indecisive commander-in-chief.

Obama’s stalling is a perfect example of his methodology: vacillate and ignore a problem or fixate on discussion rather than action.  It’s inertia vs. movement.

President George W. Bush was all about action and movement.  People denigrated his cowboy diplomacy but he acted in the best interests of his country and those at risk.

Obama is standing still. He’s acting as if he were posing for an oil painting while America suffers.  He seems more interested in his celebrity status than the people he was elected to govern and protect.

When we do see Obama move, it’s to advance his personal legacy.  Consider that he still claims to have put an end to torture in the context of military interrogations when we never advocated it.  Consider that he continues to work to close Gitmo and bring terrorists to American soil.  (The Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are under attack on a daily basis with Obama and his Marxist and Mao-loving camp, even as known terrorists will be given constitutional rights and tried in American courts.  OK imagines that so much of the information that could convict the terrorists will need to be omitted during their trials due to national security.  In other words, it's hard to feel confident that justice will be served.)

And Obama promises to make Cap and Trade a reality.  This on the heels of growing evidence that Al Gore's global warming is a hoax (and a profitable one that’s made the ex-vice president rich in spite of thousands of scientists who counter the issue and want to debate Gore on the issue; he refuses. He even had a reporter’s microphone cut when the questions concerning discrepancies in An Inconvenient Truth grew too warm and inconvenient).

Moreover, Obama promises to make national healthcare come to pass.  This is yet another power grab designed to dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world.

In other words, when it comes to radically changing our country – for the worse – Obama hops to the task with a lilt in his step.  But when it comes to directing necessary attention to foreign policy and winning a war, he checks out.

How’s this for cowboy diplomacy:  “the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory – and the certainty of total destruction – if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.”

Who spoke those words?  No one, actually – but President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have, if he had lived long enough to make it to the Dallas Trade Mart the afternoon he was assassinated.  The differences between John Kennedy and Barack Obama – between being a Democrat in the Kennedy era and being a Democrat in the 21^st century – are profound.  JFK spoke often of peace in the world, but he understood the price that had to be paid in order to attain it.  His administration engaged in numerous clandestine activities designed to ensure America’s freedom and safety.  Obama’s vision of a pacifist world, on the other hand, is pure fantasy - a utopian dream.  Ultimately, it’s about ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away, rather than acting to fix it.

Obama’s M.O. also involves using the lamestream media to set up smokescreens and divert attention from a lack of decision on Afghanistan and our country’s most pressing issues.  We hear more about balloon boy hoaxes than about energy bills that will kill our already depleted bank accounts. We hear about Obama’s vow to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military while our soldiers are imperiled abroad.  We hear about how baaaaaaaad FOX News is, how Obama will not grant it any interviews until at least 2010 and how it isn’t a true news facility.  The latter from Obama advisor David Axelrod, who also told ABC that FOX is undeserving of being treated as a true news organization: “the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way” (Ann Sanner, “White House Continues Attack on Fox News,” October 19, 2009, http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/october/1019_wh_fox.shtml).

Here’s another line from John Kennedy’s undelivered speech:  “If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.”

Thankfully, more and more Americans – including many Obama supporters – are getting tired of the endless wordplay. They’re growing exasperated with the stalling and smoke and mirrors.  They comprehend that Obama is more about inaction than action.  The president’s approval rating has hit a new low. Obama's loyalties or lack thereof are drawing attention. Fewer are laughing when the birthers cry out that being a Natural Born Citizen is an important issue for U.S. presidents.  More Americans are questioning why Obama didn't embrace his Muslim root system until after he was elected.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

Are the Democrats the Racism Party?

Just when OK thought the race(ism) card was too worn out for liberals to do anything more than retire it from the life deck, Obama-media has once again resurrected it.  It’s a strategy designed to keep Conservatives and the Right on the defensive.  The Left’s current target is talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently lectured us on the importance of civility and accountability for one’s words.  She suggested that a lack of civility could lead to violence.  However, the Left loves to sermonize while isolating and smearing any dissent.  An avid football fan, Rush announced last week that he and others were bidding on the NFL’s St. Louis Rams franchise.  His news brought about an all out assault, and hateful speech from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who fantasized about Rush’s death on air.

Now the usual suspects are playing the tattered card again – Leftist liars like Al “The Harlem P1mp” Sharpton.  Sharpton has never had a problem smearing political opponents with information based on rumor and innuendo.  Recall that he earned fame for the Tawana Brawley fake-rape hoax 20 years ago.

Then there’s that ol’ race baiter, Jesse Jackson, who joined the latest controversy and offered hateful slander to the AP yesterday (October 13, 2009), an organization Rush calls “AP-Obama” and part of “the state-run media.”  Jackson maintains that Rush, “should not have the privilege of owning an NFL franchise . . .” (“Jesse Jackson on Rush Limbaugh's possible NFL ownership: ‘He should not have the privilege of owning . . .’ Ancestors rolling over in graves at 5000 RPMs,” www.theblogprof.blogspot.com, October 13, 2009).

Of course, this isn’t the first time that Limbaugh has been targeted as the Left’s punching bag.  Recall that President Obama laughed at Wanda Sykes’ joke about Rush dying of kidney failure at the White House Correspondents’ dinner in May.

Screams of “Racism!”

In part, the latest tempest involves a statement falsely attributed to Limbaugh.  Rush has publicly denied ever saying that “slavery has merits,” yet slipshod journalists at CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post and others have taken the Wikipedia posting and reported it as fact, when it’s slander.  There is no source listed for the posting, but that’s good enough for the “state-run media” and its agenda.  The Huffington Post put out a cartoon video yesterday that shows Rush changing the Rams uniforms into Klan uniforms (www.hotairpundit.blogspot.com, 10/14/09). 

Limbaugh guest host Mark Steyn is among those who have come to Rush’s defense.  Steyn challenges, “So where are these racist soundbites? Where’s the audio? Where’s the transcript? Name the year. Heigh-ho, say CNN’s Rick Sanchez and the rest of the basement-ratings crowd. Not our problem: It’s for Limbaugh to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s never said it. We’re too busy fact-checking anti-Obama jokes to fact-check our own reporting . . .” (Mark Steyn, “The Corner,” The National Review, www.corner.nationalreview.com, October 13, 2009).  Brent Bozwell, president of Media Research Center, has demanded that CNN and MSNBC prove that radio talk show king Rush uttered racist comments they have attributed to him as fact (www.myfreedompost.com, October 14, 2009).

Sorry Leftists, with 20 Million+ Listeners, He’s Not Rushing into Obscurity

Rush is not a racist.  His ratings and millions of loyal fans prove it.  Sources claim his recently renewed contract is valued at $400 million.  That’ll keep him on the air through 2016.  The New York Times claims that Limbaugh’s annual salary is around $38 million (Matt Drudge, “LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016;  $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS,” www.drudgereport.com/flashrl.htm, July 1, 2008). The Left disagrees with his political views but then again, the KKK was a Democrat creation, a fact Rush readily points out.

Limbaugh spoke on air yesterday about suing the individuals and news organizations that are attempting to smear him in this libelous fashion.  Let’s hope he wins.  There’s too much anger, hate and lying being tossed about.

Sadly, this abuse of power begins at home: namely, The White House.  Recently, President Obama said he would not grant FOX News any interviews until at earliest 2010.  We’ve heard Obama admonish people for listening to Rush Limbaugh and then expecting to get things done.  Who’s playing low-blow partisan politics more these days, the Left or Right?

Rush understands the true face of racism and socialism and speaks out against Obama’s plans for our country.  OK suspects the liberal press was given its marching orders to engage in a new Rush attack.  The schemers knew most people wouldn’t fact check the slandering news sources and simply rush to judgment on the latest “Rush is a racist” smears.

We’re also sure the Smear Rush edict came with a convenient copy of the tired old race card, to be used liberally, as always.

Hemingway kiddingly called the Nobel Prize “the Ignoble,” even when he won it.  Too bad Papa’s nickname has become reality, given recent recipients of the Peace Prize: Yasser Arafat (a terrorist), Jimmy Carter (an anti-Semite and hater of America), Al Gore (an environmentalist poser and peddler of junk science) and now Barack Hussein Obama (a community organizer and America’s premiere apologist). The latest awarding is the biggest joke of all.

In the past the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for accomplishment.  The 1895 will of Alfred Nobel states that the prize should go to those who “shall have done the most and best work” (The Savage Nation, WELI, October 9, 2009).  Obama even recognized his lack of accomplishment doesn't match the requirement of the original charter.  In his speech today, the president offered a revisionist spin, claiming that prizes are also awarded to “give momentum to a set of causes.”

Admittedly the Nobel Committee is hyper-liberal, but the idea that it bestowed its Peace Prize on our sitting president seemed initially too surreal to process.  OK laughed aloud, thinking we’d stumbled upon a cleverly written satire.  Then we found another article declaring the news.  And another and another.

The notion that Obama is this year’s top prize recipient of international accolades is funny because he seems to have clinched the Nobel simply for his propensity to spout socialist and utopian rhetoric.  Former UN Ambassador, John Bolton asserts that the trend of the Nobel Committee in recent years is to “cheerlead political philosophies” (www.atlasshugs2000.typepad.com, October 9, 2009). Michael Savage agrees with Bolton and maintains that the Committee is “a radical leftist front group that has hijacked Alfred Nobel's prize” (The Savage Nation, October 9, 2009). 

Obama’s winning the Nobel is the biggest farce since the last WWE world title bout. This was obviously in the works before he had a chance to do anything more than take the Oath of Office (twice).  Consider that Obama would have had only 11 days of presidential experience before Nobel nominations closed (“Surprise!” ABC News, October 9, 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize/story?id=8788973).  What's more, Rice University Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley says that the Nomination Committee records "will be sealed for 50 years" (Greta, FOX News, October 09, 2009).  OK guesses that a lot of us won’t live through the wait, which is exactly their plan to keep our inquisitive eyes off The One’s birth certificate, college transcripts and other sealed records.

On a related note: BastardObama notes that the Nobel prize money – $1.4 million – will be enough to cover Obama's legal fees "to continue to bring injunctions to seal information and documents that the Obamas want buried."  The website also points out that Obama has paid “more than 1.35 million dollars to lawyers Perkins and Coie since the election” (www.bastardobama.com, October 09, 2009). Obama stated that he will donate the prize money to a charity, but didn't mention any specific organization or cause. (What’s the old line about charity beginning at home? Or at the lawyers’ offices?)

We used to think that any talk of a New World Order reeked of absurdist conspiracy theory.  Now we’re not so sure.  Dlck Morris makes an excellent observation:  “The Nobel Prize is really Obama's payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations.  Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding” (w ww.dlckmorris.com, October 9, 2009).  Perhaps this is the work of worldwide socialist conspirators.  Perhaps the Nobel Prize being awarded to Obama is another attempt to further water down America's rank as the most powerful global nation.

But here’s the truly insidious part of Obama’s receiving the Nobel: It’s now all too clear why the president has been dragging his heels instead of dealing with the Afghan crisis.  Obviously, Obama knew he was going to get the Nobel and he decided it would look terrible for the recipient of the Peace Prize to accept it the same week he sent 40 thousand troops to Afghanistan to continue a war there.

By vacillating, Obama once again affirms that he doesn’t embrace the tenets that have long kept us a free – and yes, a peaceful – nation.  Peace comes through sacrifice and strength.

Instead, Obama is letting our soldiers die and fight a war with cockeyed rules of engagement that are eroding morale and killing spirits and lives.

But hey, our prez will soon have another award for his mantle.  Maybe he can stick it next to his community organizer certificates.

No matter.  Consider that even after Obama’s non-booster shot, fewer than half of U.S. citizens want the healthcare fixit the president is proposing.  We have the best heath care in the world and many who can afford it come to America to get treated for ailments and illnesses when they are denied or put on waiting lists for treatment in countries like Canada and England.  Logic says leave our healthcare alone, or offer real reform in the way of capping the dollar amount of medical lawsuit claims against doctors or allowing patients to shop for insurance across the country.

Countless articles, documentaries and films recently heralded the Woodstock Festival’s 40^th anniversary. Few of the retrospectives mentioned the soldiers dying in Vietnam as stoners rocked out in rural New York.

Something similar is happening now. Afghan War Commander General McChrystal requested 40 thousand additional troops weeks ago. Instead of complying, President Barrack Hussein Obama continues to stall even as he attends to matters he deems more important than losing a war.

But Obama must consider the 2016 Olympics his most pressing political matter. He wants the games held in Chicago. So of course, he and First Lady Michelle are jetting off to Copenhagen– in separate planes – to make a personal appeal to the Olympic Committee. Never mind that the cost of Obama alone making the four thousand mile trip aboard Air Force One will set American taxpayers back anywhere from $300K to $500K, each way (Penny Starr, CNS News, September 30,2009, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54762).   After all, there’s no other way to get in touch with the Olympic Committee except to go meet it face-to-face, right?

The Afghan war should be tops on Obama’s list. Instead, he’s doing anything but making a decision on whether or not to honor General McChrystal’s troop request. That stall is costing us lives. McChrystal admitted on last Sunday’s 60 Minutes that he’s spoken to Obama just once in the past 70 days. Never mind that there’s a chain of command in place and Obama wants McChrystal to communicate with the Pentagon first. The president can do better than have a single direct communiqué with his on-site commander in 70 days. To do otherwise is an insult to McChrystal and every soldier who volunteered to serve his country in any way it deems necessary.

Funny how Obama continues to hedge – and liberals continue to give him a pass – on an Afghan war decision. Remember how the libs crucified President George W. Bush for not taking a firmer stance on Afghanistan? Remember how they vilified W for the troop surge in Iraq, which finally turned things around?

Truth be told, the Iraq surge was a resounding success. And in that fact is the key to Obama’s fudging on a similar Afghan surge. Sure, angering liberals may account for part of the president’s hesitancy, but there’s also this to consider: To give McChrystal the additional troops he requested would be tantamount to admitting that W was right in ordering the Iraq surge.

In fact, George W. Bush was right about a lot of things. He was right about the Iraq surge and he was right about Iran. Recall that Bush was laughed at for treating Iran as a dangerous enemy determined to join the nuclear arms community. Now we’ve learned that Ahmadinejad and company have long been cooking up uranium in hidden sites throughout the country.

W understood what President Ronald Reagan understood all too well: peace is best upheld through strength. Iran wouldn’t be processing nuke fuel and preparing an Israel doomsday bomb if Reagan, George W. Bush and VP Cheney were still in power.

And neither Reagan nor W would be running a fool’s errand to Denmark in order to secure a round of games while our troops are pleading for help.

With Despots and Dictators Aglow

President Obama took apologizing for the United States to a new low this week. In an unprecedented move for a U.S. president (and what many assert is unconstitutional), Obama headed this month’s UN Security Council in New York City.  At the helm, Obama apologized for American exceptionalism to despots and second-rate dictators.  Obamapology’s words demonstrate his lack of allegiance to the U.S. as he diminished America’s role and history of helping other countries.  He apologized for the U.S.’s previously “acting alone without regard for other nations,” and declared, “America’s been too selective in its promotion of democracy” (NYC, 9/23/09).  Obama’s lack of support for individual free will illuminates priorities right out of Lenin’s Communist playbook. 

Obama Will Talk and Tell Allies to Go for a Walk  

Obama’s international leadership means working with other countries – many declared enemies – without preconditions.  It also means mocking the successful administrations of his predecessors who worked with our allies.  Syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer called Obama’s speech “somewhere between embarrassing and dangerous.”  As Krauthammer points out, “You had a president of the United States actually saying no nation can or should try to dominate another” (“Special Report With Bret Bair,” Fox News, September 23, 2009).  That Obama refused to stand up for the country he was elected to serve is inexcusable.  If any apologies are in order, Obama owes one to the American people.

The New York Post featured a brilliant cartoon in its September 25^th issue.  It shows Obama leaving the UN podium after his speech. Obama asks Uncle Sam how he did.  Uncle Sam is more than just shaken by the speech.  There’s a dagger sticking out of his back.  The cartoon would be hysterical if it weren’t so sad – and accurate.

There’s a plug in the Grand Hospital, and one in the Home as Well

The health care bill is in its final stages.  However, fierce opposition to a First Amendment violation took place this week when Congress issued a ‘gag order’ and threatened Humana, a private health insurance company, with a lawsuit.  Humana sent out letters to enrollees informing them about the health care bill’s proposed Medicare cuts.  How Congress gets away with threats and stifling dissent of a fact that was verified by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is incomprehensible (“White House Threatens to Prosecute Medicare Companies for Warning Seniors of Cuts,” LifeSiteNews.com, September 24, 2009).   

Is the Wish of Nancy, Obama and Dems

Also this week, the Senate turned down legislation that would have given Congress more oversight over Obama’s thirty plus czars.  Cass R. Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar, made another move to push his “diversity” plans forward to silence talk radio.  Congress’ hands are tied.  Obama’s czars are illegal and in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but Congress and the American people know very little about them.  Michael Savage calls Obama’s czars the “equivalent to the KGB in the ex-Soviet Union.”  Savage adds that Obama and the current administration are taking a wrecking ball to the Constitution and that Obama needs “his czars so they can help him push his party’s manifesto and dictums” (The Savage Nation, Michael Savage, 960 WELI, 9/25/09).

The Department of Homeland Security also has a czar, and announced its plans to cut 384 border agents from along the Southern Mexican border.  These agents will be transferred to the Canadian border.  This cut of southern border protection follows a border shooting incident this week and over a year of ever-escalating drug wars in Mexico.

The president’s duplicity is on full garish display when one considers the border agent shuffle.  Consider that Obama has extended his bash-America rhetoric to Mexico.  In visits south of the border, the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. was responsible for much of Mexico’s crime problem because we buy its drugs and supply its mobs with guns.  So does it make a lot of sense to downscale security between the American-Mexican borders?  Maybe we missed something.  Maybe we were so fixated on America’s slide toward socialism that we missed Mexico’s drug and crime waves being eradicated.

The Carol that They Sing

A video surfaced on the Internet this week of 20 or so New Jersey public school children chanting praises to President Obama to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic.  The B. Bernice Young Elementary School’s principal released a memo stating that the teacher leading the six- and seven-year students in song chanting, “Barrack Hussein Obama,” were honoring Obama during Black History Month.  The memo also states that the teacher retired last year, but OK notes that the dates don’t jive.  Black History month is traditionally celebrated in February.  The video has caused outrage by many parents for what appears to be brainwashing.  OK wonders why federally funded public schools are taking a partisan position.  One father of two children at Bernice Young Elementary says, “I felt this was reminiscent of 1930s Germany, and the indoctrination of children to worship their leader” (“Review Ordered of Video Showing Students Singing Praises of President Obama,” FoxNews.com, September 25, 2009).    

Left Within their Hearts

An editorial in the September 25 Washington Times reveals that Iran has a second underground enrichment plant and that Obama knew about it before he took office in January.  He also knew about it before he addressed the UN two days ago and called for a nuclear free world.  So Iran is capable of weaponizing nukes, but White House sources state that Obama waited to “drop the bombshell after extensive diplomatic work” (The Washington Times, 9/25/09).

Iran’s brutal leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has oppressed and killed his own people, and he has two nuclear enrichment plants underway.  He’s openly threatened violence against the U.S. and has refused to let UN inspectors into his plants, but he was allowed into our country to speak at the UN this week.  Our liberal media – the AP and Time Magazine – took time to interview Ahmadinejad, who also denies the existence of the Holocaust.  CNN took time to interview Moamer Kadhafi, another brutal leader.  Larry King featured Hugo Chavez on his show.  These are the same news organizations that call American Patriots “right-wing terrorists” and TEA Party goers “teabaggers,” but have barely – never accurately – reported on the TEA Party events and/or this summer's town hall meetings.

Forget Rudolf, There’s A Lot of Other Red-Nosing Going On 

The level of red nosing in this country has reached new lows.  In the past, our less-than-distinct luminaries traveled to communist countries to laud its leaders.  Now they’re doing it here in America and making the oppressors the guests of honor. Oliver Stone and Chavez were lauded with several standing ovations before Stone’s latest film was screened in Manhattan this week.  Celebs like Susan Sarandon and Courtney Love fawned over Chavez.  We’re seeing a willful march toward socialism.  They want to tear down everything that the architects of our nation so carefully forged.  If we don’t push back in the 2010 and 2012 elections, we might find a new flag replacing Old Glory – a red flag, yes, with white and blue conspicuously absent.

By Oscar De Los Santos and Kelly L. Goodridge

For years it was all too easy for liberals to find a scapegoat for the world’s ills. In fact, they’re still using the same punching bag now and again. When all else fails, blame George W. Bush. But these days we have a new commander-in-chief, one who addressed the world at the UN today (September 23, 2009) and scolded it for not helping America with its economy and wars.   Of course, if Barack Hussein Obama were honest, he would start shouldering the blame for our rapidly stagnating national state. If anyone is to blame for resurrecting Jimmy Carter’s “malaise,” it’s Dreamboat Obama himself, who has embarked on starry-eyed, dead-end idealist missions that are stripping America of all respect in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Obama used his global platform to warn the world that it had to quell its “almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction” (Matt Spetalnick and Andrew Quinn, “Obama seeks help at U.N., some raise questions,” Reuters, September 23, 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58M0VN20090923?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69).

Truly, if there’s anyone at fault for driving us into inaction these days, it’s Obama himself. He’s so obsessed with passing healthcare reform that Americans don’t want, that he’s hurting us by ignoring our immediate need: a troop surge in Afghanistan. He laid out his plan six months ago. It’s a little late to be worrying about cost and strategy, yet he continues to waffle. (Regardless of what excuse he wishes to toss at us, we understand that Obama won’t green-light General McChrystal’s request for 40 thousand more soldiers for fear of losing leftist votes to pass his healthcare bill. McChrystal is the top military commander in Afghanistan. He’s at the source. He knows what he needs to make a difference in an otherwise futile exercise. Obama doesn’t care. In fact, the president had McChrystal’s request muzzled for days in order to embark on another healthcare TV blitz.)

 So obsessed is Obama with moving cap & trade forward, that he’s ignoring the fact that the earth is experiencing a decade of its coolest temperatures. So obsessed is Obama with making nice with the Russians, that he’s thrown Poland and the Czech Republic – and America’s safety – under the bus by abandoning our planned overseas missile defense system in favor of Defense-Lite.

And what did Obama get for making nice with people who hate America? The same thing he got by calling our enemies before calling our allies the morning he took office; the same thing he got for bashing his country while on his international apology tour; the same thing he’s going to get for ordering the Defense Department to radically downscale our nuclear arsenal; the same thing he’s going to get for sharing his dreamboat vision of a world without nuclear bombs: NOTHING.

In fact, rather than getting anything, Obama is still busy ceding the national farm. Consider that during the harsh economic climate the U.S. is weathering, we’re still giving away billions to the very people who would blow us away in a heartbeat, if given the opportunity. Consider that America “is expected to spend about $36.7 billion on its foreign aid budget next year” (William La Jeunesse, “Tracking Your Taxes,” FOX News, September 22, 2009). Lest you think all of the money is designated for humanitarian causes, think again. Here’s an infuriating breakdown of the money that will be doled out, according to FOX News:

• $98 million to persuade Kim Jong-il of North Korea to give up nuclear weapons
• $20 million for political prisoners and political rights in Castro's Cuba
• $6 million to promote civil society in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela
• $500,000 for border security in Muammar al-Qaddafi's Libya
• $26 million to help train police in Evo Morales' Bolivia
• $56 million to support the rule of law and human rights in Vladimir Putin's Russia, arguably one of the world's richest nations

(Source: William La Jeunesse, “Tracking Your Taxes: Sending Billions in Aid to Despots and Wealthy Nations,” FOX News, September 22, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/22/tracking-taxes-sending-billions-aid-despots-wealthy-nations/)

So why shouldn’t NATO and the rest of the world leave America in the lurch? They know someone who is ignoring everything but his own Machiavellian reckless visions is running our country. Michael Savage asserts that Obama is “to the left of most of the dictators in the UN.” As a result, Savage declares, “I’m flabbergasted” (960 WELI radio, September 23, 2009). OK feels the same way.

There was so much talk about a so-called “bridge to nowhere” a short while back. Now we’re a country marching toward nowhere – except perhaps Omega – thanks to a reckless non-leader who duped many into electing him.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

Our U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, was 222 years old on September 17, but President Barack Obama’s recent actions leave OK wondering if Constitutional Law is still governing the USA.  Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but Constitution Day passed without any recognition from Obama.  Given his penchant for reworking our country, this shouldn’t surprise anyone – but nevertheless, the slap stings.

Obama is on video stating he believes the Constitution is an “imperfect” document” that has “deep flaws in American culture – Colonial culture” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI). He’s also said that he views it as a “living-breathing document.”  It’s no surprise then that Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor, who’s also on video stating that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”  Again, Justice Sotomayor took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not change it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2QYouTube).

Perhaps Obama is hoping that his 30 plus czars that he appointed and are accountable only to him and exempt from Congressional oversight – another unconstitutional move – will help him override the Constitution.  His regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, has proposed that Federal Law should not be interpreted by judges, but rather by the U.S. President.  In fact, Sunstein’s Yale Law School scholarship includes a proposal that “the executive (president) should usually be permitted to interpret (law) as it reasonably sees fit” (“Obama Should Interpret Law, Not Courts,” The Obama File, 9/16/09 (www.theobamafile.com).

Obama took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, but he’s pushing forward his health care agenda.  The Wall Street Journal (9/18/09) and many others have challenged that the president’s health-care reform – ObamaCare – is unconstitutional.  That didn’t stop Michelle Obama from delivering a teary appeal today (9/18) to pass it, and Obama is scheduled to appear on a five-show media blitz on Sunday to sell it.  

Obama also abandoned planned missile-defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic on his own – without oversight, debate or discussion by Congress and We the People (Michael Savage, 9/18/09, 960 WELI). 

Obama and his team have been treading over the Constitution since he took office, possibly even before he was inaugurated.  According to “birthers,” Obama has yet to produce a legitimate long form birth certificate as proof of his Constitutional eligibility to serve as President.  Several lawsuits have been filed requesting it. Some date back before the election.  Experts have also disputed the copy of Certificate of Live Birth that Obama posted on his “Fight the Smears” website.  However, Obama signed an order to seal all his records during his first day in office.

No matter how much naysayers poke fun and attempt to dismiss the “birthers,” news broke last week that Obama and Biden’s official DNC Official Certification and Nomination letter went out to all 50 states without the constitutional eligibility clause: “- and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States Constitution.”  It’s the first time in American history that the letter has been signed off on without the required text, and – what a surprise! – Nancy Pelosi is at the center of the controversy.  She signed-off on Obama’s and Biden’s letter.  A complete letter is on file, but letters omitting the constitutional text were sent out to the states.  Candidates are vetted by “respective Party Conventions,” and OK wonders why the constitutional clause was left off the DNC letters filed with the states.  Each party vets their own candidate and as J.B. Williams, who uncovered the discrepancy through the Freedom of Information Act, points out, “it’s like having the fox guard the hen house” (“The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie,” J.B. Williams, www.canadafreepress.com, Sept. 10, 2009).

Obama’s presidential ambitions don’t appear to be upholding the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution seems to largely get in the way of his ambitions. Perhaps no greater proof exists than the way he wedged his way into the United Nations Security Council. There are major warnings against such a move (see Section 9 of the Constitution). Nevertheless, Obama chose himself to chair the United Nations Security Council. Shocking? Yes, but it’s beginning to seem that Obama and Co. regard any government edict passed prior to their ascension as a rule meant for others.

Many of Obama’s actions – particularly those that ignore the Constitution – smack more of kingly behavior than American presidential behavior. Again, by now we shouldn’t be surprised, but this president’s ongoing antics disturb and infuriate those of us who believe that Constitutional Law should be upheld, not disregarded.

By now, most of us have heard about the new Osama bin Laden tape which surfaced. In it, the al-Qaeda mastermind – or a clever imitator – calls President Barack Obama “powerless” to end the Afghan war (“Bin Laden Calls Obama ‘powerless’ in New Tape,” FOX News, September 14, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549780,00.html). Whether the voice actually belongs to bin Laden isn’t as important as the challenging statement. The truth is that Obama isn’t powerless, but rather, that he’s chosen to water down the power of our American government and military to advance his foolish pacifist dreams. Foolish because nobody Obama tries to coddle pays attention to him. In fact, they regard his olive branches as a sign of weakness and ignore him. Foolish, also, because by continuing to project such wishy-washiness, Obama is putting the United States military – and indeed, all of America – in danger of future terrorist attacks.

A few weeks ago, we learned that captured Afghan terrorists were being read Miranda rights. Then last week, we heard that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan changed and that if any Afghan civilians are potentially at risk, American soldiers can’t attack the enemy. This new game plan has already cost us American lives.

We also heard that Obama is hamstringing our military from making headway in winning the war. According to Ralph Peters, “The classified status report from Afghanistan by Gen. Stanley McChrystal was censored by the White House before its submission. As a result it’s all buns and no burger. According to multiple (angry) sources, McChrystal – our top soldier on the ground – intended to ask for 28,000 more US troops. A presidential hatchet man directed the general not to make the request” (“O’s Afghan woes,” New York Post, September 3, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/afghan_woes_J8JZ95su7y550Pqj1ddQ3I).

In other words, the president is using military strategists as figureheads and sending yes men to say no   That’s some way to fight a war, isn’t it?

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal features a powerful piece co-written by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ). They’ve assessed the war and think it’s winnable, but “we need more than the right team and the right strategy. This team must also have the resources it needs to succeed – including a significant increase in U.S. forces” (“Only Decisive Force Can Prevail in Afghanistan,” September 13, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404753110979442.html).

Given Obama’s track record, that surge is unlikely to happen anytime soon. If anything, he will continue to make it easier for the enemy to get away with literal murder.

To wit: there’s more reconfiguring in the works. According to yesterday’s New York Times, Afghan war detainees will be provided more power to challenge their imprisonment. What does this mean, exactly? Only that hundreds of Afghan prisoners can get in line and make it more difficult for the U.S. to win this war. Oh, and it’ll be a U.S. representative who will be helping to set free the enemy.

Each day we hear of another misstep by this novice community organizer turned president, from refusing to go tough on North Korea to re-thinking overseas missile defense bases to being diffident about Israel’s plight in the wake of Iran’s mounting nuclear capabilities.

The question naturally arises: why? Does Obama want to endanger us? Maybe Ralph Peters’ explanation of the president’s decision not to send more troops into Afghanistan provides us with the answer to all questions when it comes to Obama’s behavior in matters of foreign policy:  “Worried about poll numbers, our president is making a bad situation worse. He’s given McChrystal the impossible mission of turning Afghan Flintstones into Jetsons, while starving him of means” (“O’s Afghan woes”).

Obama has never stopped campaigning. He’s constantly worried about image and his popularity ratings. The man is clearly on a mission to erect a historical monument to himself, the rest of us and his country be damned.

The trouble is that in the process of doing so, he’s leaving us vulnerable overseas and on our own soil. America may be closer to the world of the Jetsons than the Flintstones, but with regressive Obama at the helm, we can easily find ourselves living in Fred and Wilma’s Bedrock nation.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

He’s been in office only nine months, but that’s plenty of time for President Obama and his cabinet of tax cheats and Communist-loving shadow government of czars to put a stranglehold on Capitalism. The president passed a $787 billion dollar stimulus package that put us on a path toward deficits “on a scale not seen in half a century” (“Rescuing Reform,” www.washington.post.com, September 9, 2009). Rather than stimulate the economy, Porkulus seems to have hurt it. The Bureau of Labor states that unemployment is up to 9.7 for the month of August. Obama has bailed out private sector businesses and power grabbed the banking, insurance and automobile industries. He was elected to serve We The People and yet, in the epitome of arrogance, Obama is charging forward with ObamaCare, despite nationwide protests from citizens at town hall meetings across the country. He’s also pushing the Waxman-Marky cap-and-tax plan, a cap-and-trade bill that passed the House earlier this summer.  If this bill goes forward, it will be the largest tax ever levied on American citizens.

Obama gave his 28^th or 29^th speech on health care last night (September 9, 2009) – it’s hard to keep track at this point – and once again pushed his agenda. Regardless of what he said or how he said it, the president made it clear that he’s prepared to ignore the collective voice of the American people who through surveys and town hall meetings and organized protests have made it clear that they do not want ObamaCare. Why? Because the majority of Americans recognize that ObamaCare is all about control of U.S. citizenry. It means government control over our medications, medical records and doctors. What’s more, under this plan, both taxpayers and employers will be taxed if they don’t have health care coverage.

Michael Savage says that Americans are in an “epic battle against Cuban-style health care in America,” and that “dictators are all about health care” and control (Michael Savage, 960 AM radio, September 9, 2009). Sadly, when it comes to many matters, Obama’s behavior is very close to dictator-like. To wit: the president hasn’t met with GOP leaders on health care since April, but we keep hearing about his czars and their plans regarding abortions, sterilization, organ donations and rationalized care. Why is the president pushing ObamaCare when he has no Constitutional authority to do so? 

News broke Wednesday (September 9) that self-avowed Communist, race baiter and 9/11 conspiracy loon Van Jones, who resigned this past weekend, helped write the Stimulus Bill. Why would an unregulated appointment outside the Constitution, whose words that most Americans find abhorrent, help write legislation for We The People? After watching his videos, OK and many other concerned Americans believe Van Jones’s words are morally and ethically outside the norm. He’s a radical. Why did he have our President’s ear? How did a self-avowed Communist and 9/11 “truther” get into the White House in the first place? Why did Jones get to use taxpayer dollars to push his green agenda and help write legislation?

Van Jones is just one czar; Obama has loaded the White House with them (a topic for another essay). Together, the president and his visible and shadow government are sinking us deeper into gargantuan debt. Glenn Beck shares some alarming numbers:

President Obama announced that his 2009 budget was projected to produce a $1,700,00,00,000 deficit. If you break that down you find that we’re spending $4.657 billion every day for a year, which breaks down further to $53,906.64 per second. In the time it takes you to read this paragraph, our government will have spent more than what most Americans make in more than twenty years of work! (Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, p. 24)

The Social Security Trust Fund reports an August net deficit of $5.865 Billion, “the largest monthly deficit in nineteen years” (Bruce Krasting, www.zerohedge.com, September 8, 2009). Krasting also notes that “the magnitude of the shortfall was a surprise” and that this is the seventh shortfall in the past twelve months. He asserts that this pace “has never been seen before.”

The Obama File cites a new study by Nobel laureate James Buchanan who observes that Obama is “committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression” and that Obama’s policies have “the potential to consign the U.S. to a similar fate as Argentina.” They took a “slide from first to Third World status last century,” says Buchanan (www.theobamafile.com, September 7, 2009).

Now, on top of letting Obama use stimulus money – taxpayer money – to fund groups that are in his back pocket (ACORN, AFL-CIO, NEA, SEIU), we’re supposed to crater to his ObamaCare wishes and saddle ourselves with more debt. By his own admission, Obama’s revamped healthcare will saddle us with $900 billion more debt.

This insanity cannot continue. We were once the land of the free, not the fee. If we want to get there again – or some sensible approximation of same – Obama’s reckless dream spinning has to stop. Now.

The clock is ticking for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel and President Barack Obama’s environmental officer, Van Jones. It’s probably only a matter of time before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yanks Charlie offstage permanently (or as permanently as an exit gets in politics). Then she can toss the hook to Obama and get him to pull Jones off the liberal stage.

Plainly, simply, Obama and Pelosi are in enough of their own – well, muck – right now. They can’t afford to let loose cannons like Rangel and Jones hog the limelight with their massive missteps. Left alone, these two don’t even seem to spot their goofs. In fact, until last night (Sept. 3), when the latter issued an official apology for calling Republicans a**holes at a public meeting and a denial that he was part of a witch hunt charging that President George W. Bush may have known that the September 11 attacks were in the works before they occurred, Green Czar Jones and Rangel didn’t seem to have reverse gears (Jake Tapper, “Controversial Obama Official Denies Being Part of 9/11 ‘Truther’ Movement,” ABC News, September 3, 2009, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-part-of-911-truther-movement-apologizes-for.html).

But they certainly carry Race Cards. Rangel and Jones have whipped them out and used them for years.  When he learned Barack and Michelle Obama were having a “date night” in New York City, Rangel joked, “Make certain he doesn’t run around East Harlem unidentified” (David Knowles, “NYC Mayor Upset Over Rangel’s Obama Quips,” Politics Daily, June 1, 2009, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/01/new-york-mayor-upset-over-charlie-rangels-obama-quips/). More recently, good ol’ Charlie has done his best to blame the president’s ObamaCare health insurance trouble on racial prejudice. “Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States,” Rangel charged at a health-care information meeting in Washington Heights. “They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?’” (Carl Campanile, “Charlie ups the race-card ante,” New York Post, September 3, 2009, p. 2).   That would have been plenty, but Rangel seemed determined to take his illogic further. “Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can’t we get what God has given us? That is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not count the votes. Just do the right thing.”

Jones has a criminal record. He is a self-avowed communist and the founding member of STORM, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. The group’s goal is to remake America.  

If it were just recent missteps, perhaps Rangel and Jones could survive to pester conservatives and their own liberal party another day – but they have a penchant for behaving anything but ethically. Consider Rangel’s tax problems. And consider his memory lapses: Rangel forgot to report a Congressional Federal Credit Union account worth about $250,000. He forgot about a Merrill Lynch account worth $500,000 (“Sorry Charlie,” The Washington Post, September 3, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203082_pf.html). That’s just for starters.

Obama and Pelosi need to decide if they can afford to have cannons that are this loose firing off volleys at a time when their presidency and House Speaker positions are damaged and their approval ratings way down. The president has a long road to travel if he’s going to convince anyone but his czars, a handful of leftwing liberals and MSNBC anchors that America needs single-pay healthcare. Does he want the Rangel/Jones migraine?

Of course not. That’s why he needs to tell Jones to step down and why Pelosi needs to call for Rangel’s resignation. The House Speaker should reverse her decision not to make any decision on Rangel before a House ethics committee investigates his tax problems. Any junior law student can see that the inquiry is already compromised, since Rangel contributed to several of the committee members’ last campaign funds! (“Rangel Pays Ethics Investigators Probing Him,” Corruption Chronicles / Judicial Watch, September 3, 2009, http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/sep/rangel-pays-investigators-probing-him)

We need corruptocrats like Rangel and Jones (and Barney Frank and Tim “TurboTax” Geithner and Harry Reid) to go. The alarm clock is blaring – but a part of us suspects that Obama and Pelosi may just hit snooze – AGAIN.

Liberals have a penchant for revising history, but some of their recent rewrites are especially alarming.

Look at the sanctification of Sen. Edward Kennedy, which is moving beyond whitewash and into fantastic territories.  Modern liberalism strikes again in blogger Melissa Lafsky’s Huffington Post article, “The Footnote Speaks: What Would Mary Jo Kopechne Have Thought of Ted’s Career?” (8/27/09). Incredibly, Lafsky wonders what Kopechne, the young woman Teddy left to drown in Chappaquiddick, would think about Kennedy’s life and career.  Lafsky’s conclusion: “Who Knows – Maybe She’d Feel It Was Worth It” (The Huffington Post, August 27, 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-lafsky/the-footnote-speaks-what_b_270298.html).  You read that right: Lafsky speculates that Mary Jo might think Kennedy went on to do so much good that it was worth her drowning to advance the man’s career!

She’s not the only female championing Teddy.  Another who should know better and who at one time slammed him in a book, Joyce Carol Oates, all but praises the departed senator for the success of his second act (Joyce Carol Oates, “Kennedy’s redemption from the depths,” August 27, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/27/edward-kennedy-usa).

Then we have President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), who claims that Obama’s rhetorical skills are doing more to punch out international terrorism than any move enacted by the Bush administration.  According to Jones, because of the president’s willingness “ to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies” America is making more headway in the war than ever before (Jake Tapper, “ABC News Exclusive: National Security Adviser Says President Obama is Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush Did,” ABC News, August 31, 2009, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/abc-news-exclusive-national-security-adviser-says-president-obama-is-having-greater-success-taking-t.html).

(Right.  That’s why al-Qaeda is making a startling comeback in Afghanistan; why Pakistan’s terrorist incidents are on the upswing; why last Friday, Pakistan diffidently released nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, who many intelligence officials in America and India consider a serious threat to international peace; why Iraq just lived its most violent month since the days of the surge; why Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber; why the UAE just intercepted a ship carrying weaponry from North Korea to Iran.)

But maybe the most disturbing revision of history that’s in the works is the watering down of September 11.  It’s tempting to blame Obama for what seems to be an egotistical usurping of the day to advance one of his pet causes.  To do so, however, would make us guilty of our own quibble.  We don’t want to revise history, but rather track the blame.  To do so, we need to return to Ted Kennedy and the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.  The bill called for Americans to volunteer their services as a way to honor the fallen on September 11.  On April 21, 2009, Obama signed the bill into law (surprise, surprise), but even before that, President George W. Bush and some conservative members of Congress supported the idea of volunteerism on September 11.

That doesn’t make it right.  Instead of remembering those whom we lost and the ramifications of this most egregious attack on our country, liberals want us to showcase ourselves as meek citizens behaving in a penitent fashion.  This besmirches the memory of that horrific day.

It also reminds OK of an incident at our own university the day after the Towers fell.  The students got together and wanted to sing “The Star Spangled Banner.”  Liberal professors cried foul.  They said that to do so was to send out the wrong message.  They believed students should sing “America the Beautiful” instead.  OK disagreed.  We believe the students had the right idea.  What was wrong with singing a song affirming our nation’s resilience in the aftermath of the blow that had just been leveled upon us?

Conservatives should fight against this damaging revision of the history books.  September 11 should not be a day in which we pretend that nothing happened.  It should be a day to remember our dead and one of the most violent attacks on American soil.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

Under the guise of compassion and concern for others and health care for everyone, the Democrats are proposing a reform of US health care.  Obama’s agenda appears in a bill backed by the House and another issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Health committee.  However, these two bills undermine our Constitutional liberties, freedoms and rights.  The push for reform is not about health, it’s about control – it’s a power grab.

ObamaCare is about removing our choice of doctor, insurance plan and privatized healthcare.  “Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans – and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform” (“5 Freedoms You’d Lose in Health Care Reform,” Fortune on CNNMoney.com, 7/27/09).  However, a close reading of the bills reveal “a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage” (Fortune on CNNMoney.com).  The fine print in the Congressional plans contradicts President Obama’s assurances.

ObamaCare is about a single-payer government-run system.   Obama asserts that a government-run health option would drive down costs by breaking down monopolies of private insurance companies.  However, ObamaCare will put private insurance companies out of business.  We the People will only have one healthcare option, the government-run option.

In addition, the bills propose a raid on Medicare.  In his weekly GOP address yesterday (8/29/09), Senator Enzi, a Banking Member of the Senate’s Health Committee, stated that such a raid “will result in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the elderly to create new government programs” (gatewaypundit.blogspot.com, 8/29/09).

ObamaCare is about creating 53 new government bureaucracies and controlling every aspect of our nation’s health care system.  Do we need a more bloated and intrusive government?  Here are just a few of the new bureaucracies that will be created: Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 123, p. 30), Health Choices Administration (Section 141, p. 41), Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 144, p. 47), Program of Administrative Simplification (Section 163, p. 57), Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 164(d), p. 70), Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 72), Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Administration Commissioner (Section 206(b), p. 106), Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 206(c), p. 107), Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 207, p. 109),  State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 208, p. 111), “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 221, p. 116), and that’s just the first eleven comittees that the House bill proposes (“HR 3200- Obamacare Creates 53 New Federal Bureaucracies,” rightsoup.com August 10, 2009).

ObamaCare is about invading our medical and financial privacy.  An editorial in today’s (8/30/09) The Washington Times reports that under Obama’s health care reform, “The innermost secrets of people's personal lives would be made available to thousands of government bureaucrats” (www.washingtontimes.com). Apparently, the bill requires the Internal Revenue Service to give taxpayer information to the new health choices commissioner and state health programs under Section 431(a).  Besides an individual’s income, dependents and filing status, “The IRS would be commanded to provide whatever information about individual taxpayers the health choices commissioner deemed necessary” (www.washingtontimes.com, 8/30/09).

ObamaCare is about funding unions.  The Detroit Free Press reports that the health care reform bill being pushed by the Left “includes a provision that would supply up to $10 billion to shore up the UAW’s Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) fund, which was established in the last round of labor negotiations to allow the union to control and administer the health care benefits of retired autoworkers” (Ed Brayton, “Health care reform bill includes billions for union fund” michiganmessenger.com, 8/24/09).  Didn’t we already give the auto industry a bailout?

ObamaCare is about rationing care and forming death care panels.  The privileged late Sen. Edward Kennedy was provided with the best of care as he battled brain cancer.  The cancer-fighting drug Avastin that was among the arsenal Kennedy used to fight his disease bares an estimated cost of over $100,000 a year.  Yet, studies show that “it [Avastin] prolongs life by only a few months” (Gina Kolata and Andrew Pollack, “Costly Cancer Drug Offers Hope, but Also a Dilemma,” New York Times, July 6, 2008). Access to such a drug and treatment plan is not the kind of care that Obama has in mind for taxpayers.

Obama has suggested painkillers for the terminally ill and has even questioned his grandmother’s decision to have a hip replacement when she was told that she had terminal cancer and had only six to nine months to live after suffering what doctors believed was a mild stroke (ABC Health Care infomercial and town hall meeting, June 24, 2009).  In a May 3, 2009 interview in the New York Times Magazine, Obama addressed end-of-life care costs.  He agreed that the elderly in their final weeks of life are a “huge driver of cost” and that they account for potentially 80% of the nation’s total health care costs.  Obama has since denied that his plan would pull the plug on grandma.  He’s even mocked the idea – but in May he told the New York Times that a “conversation guided by doctors, scientists and ethicists, needs to take place.”  Weeks later, he repeated the warning:  “there’s going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place . . . it would be best served by independent groups [death panel] that can give you guidance – it’s not determinative, but it has to give you guidance” (The Steve Malzberg Show, www.wor710.com, 8/24/09).  Obama proposes a panel that would slow the costs of medical advancement and consumption.  That sounds like an end-of-life panel – aka, a death panel – to OK.

In Europe citizens are asked to accept fatal diagnoses.  We don’t need a group to decide our end-of-life care here in America.  We should retain the right decide on surgery and treatment, in consultation with our doctors.  Senator Kennedy was able to do.  We the People need to retain this right.

ObamaCare is about letting the government decide whose life is worth living.  “That feels dishonest to me,” said President Obama when asked about death care panels in the health care reform bills.  However, Joseph Ashby in The American Thinker asserts that the death panel is already in Stimulus Bill, HR1.  He notes that the bill contains $1.1 billion dollars to fund “The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.”  The Council’s function is to empower an “unelected bureaucracy” to make decisions about end-of-life health care.  This Council has the power to make decisions about our health, the treatment and care we receive and basically whether we get to live.  Ashby writes, “Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make” (‘“Death panel’ Is Not In the Bill . . . It Already Exists,” The American Thinker, 8/15/09, www.americanthinker.com).