Sibby Online

Cap and trade America’s prosperity

Looks like the only thing that will be capped and traded is prosperity:

There is still time to stop the legislative monstrosity known as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill before the Senate approves it. But for that to happen, Americans must learn how bad it is.

Let's briefly review the basics: the bill is ostensibly designed to curb man-caused carbon emissions (presumably without outlawing breathing) to retard global warming.

Even if we accept, for purposes of argument, the assumptions of radical, hysterical leftist environmentalists that man-caused global warming will destroy the planet if evil, rich capitalists don't radically curtail their own contributions to the catastrophe, Waxman-Markey would not prevent this Armageddon.

Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger, of New Hope Environmental Services, calculates that the bill would only reduce Earth's temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree Celsius by 2100. The Heritage Foundation's Ben Lieberman says he's found no "decent refutation of the assertion that the temperature impact would be inconsequential."

Unfortunately, the bill's negative impact on the economy would not be inconsequential. Lieberman says the bill would cause estimated job losses averaging about 1.15 million from 2012-2030, and the cumulative projected loss in gross domestic product would be almost $10 trillion by 2035. The national debt from this bill alone, disregarding the multiple bailouts, stimulus packages and health care "reform," would increase by 2035 for a family of four by 26 percent, or $115,000.

Heritage is not alone in making these claims. The far more liberal Brookings Institution estimates the bill would cost 1.8 percent of GDP in 2035 and 2.5 percent by 2050. Heritage's "Foundry" blog concludes, "Economists from liberal think tanks, conservative think tanks, and industry associations agree that Waxman-Markey will reduce income by hundreds of billions of dollars per year."

Daschle & Obama attacking rights with health care agenda

Obamacare will not be about saving money, it will be about controlling us under the guise of cost control:

A nurse has filed a lawsuit against the medical records provisions of President Obama's stimulus bill alleging it not only gives government officials access to personal health records, it would open the door for bureaucrats to make health care decisions.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court for the Southern District of New York by Beatrice Heghmann, a nurse from Durham, N.H. It targets the health sections of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that demand all health care records be put into an electronic format.

The recently filed claim cites the authorization of the "Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology."

The lawsuit explains the federal law specifies, "The National Coordinator shall perform the duties under subsection (c) in a manner consistent with the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure that allows for the electronic use and exchange of information and that among other functions provides appropriate information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."

Using the personal information, the lawsuit claims, "the National Coordinator will monitor treatments to make sure the plaintiff's doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective."

The lawsuit said the federal plan's goal "is to reduce costs and 'guide' plaintiff's doctor's decisions."

The language is virtually identical to what former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., prescribed in his 2008 book "Critical, What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" after voters in his state refused to return him to Washington.

"According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and 'learn to operate less like solo practitioners,'" the lawsuit said. "The National Coordinator will be able to enforce his decision as to what is appropriate treatment through sanctions against health care providers. Health care providers that are not 'meaningful users' of the new system will face penalties. 'Meaningful user' is not defined in the Stimulus Act. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose 'more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.'"

The result is that penalties that could be imposed against doctors that would "deter the plaintiff's health care providers from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols should (a medical) condition become atypical," the lawsuit said.

Further, the demand that all health records be kept electronically would put the plaintiff's personal information "a mouse-click away from being accessible to [strangers]."

That amounts to an unconstitutional release of her personal and private health information, the lawsuit says.

The radical left lies to condone breaking law

Cory Heidelberger said this about Greenpeace’s attack on Mount Rushmore:

p.s.: The Greenpeace activists do deserve credit for well-executed political theater. These weren't drunken anarchist goons out to smash windows. They were highly organized, well-trained climbers who took care not to do damage that could distract from their message.

Here is the truth:

Officials at Mount Rushmore may change their security measures after environmentalists were able to hang a banner warning about global warming from atop the national monument, a spokesman said.

The activists intentionally damaged part of the memorial's security system and were able to delay rangers' response to the demonstration Wednesday, said Nav Singh, a spokesman for the Mount Rushmore National Memorial. He would not be more specific.

Heidelberger goes on to support this with the lie:

Symbolically, Mount Rushmore may have been the best place in the world to carry off this specific protest action. The activists ventured into the heart of the conservative West (I can't help thinking some of the Greenpeacers would rather have been back in the big city) to stand up for what here is a very unpopular position. They juxtaposed a gray image of President Obama next to the most famous stone representations of American Presidents, a setting that echoed exactly what their banner said: we memorialize Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln for brave leadership, not political craft.

What Greenpeace did was ‘political craft" and not leadership. As Cory points out, it was about attacking the "conservative West ". What Obama is doing is "political craft", not leadership. Obama is destroying what Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln created…liberty.

Radical left honor law breakers

We have Cory Heidelberger calling those who damage government property as being patriotic:

I would suggest that if this year's Tea Parties—and the original—were patriotic, then so was Wednesday's Mount Rushmore protest. The Greenpeacers are every bit as committed to their principles as the fellas in Boston Harbor, willing to break the law to get their message across. In the case of the guy at the bottom of the banner, that patriotism meant being willing to let a 65-foot banner take him for a parachute ride on the side of a mountain... and hang on to complete the mission.

Is it a crime? Sure. But an outrage? The four big fellas on the mountain might have thought otherwise.

And then there is David Newquist on Keloland, who often attack others as he commits the same offenses:

Unfurling a banner is a lot less destructive than a bucket of paint would be, but the fact is that Mt. Rushmore is the supreme site for launching messages. I don't condone doing plastic alterations on the Rushmore visages, but I can't but admire Greenpeace's strategy.

As I pointed out, the action was anti-American, not patriotic. While these same Progressives agree with the government targeting conservative groups and accusing them of potential violence, the real criminals are honored. Sadly we have come to the point when you do it, it is wrong, when we do it, it is honorable.

We have abandoned the founding principles that the founders on Mount Rushmore used to create liberty. In the 1830’s, Alexis de Tocqueville said that religion and politics were in harmony as he sought the reason for why America’s crime rates were lower than France. The harmony has been removed by the secular Progressives. Morality has been replaced with immorality. The secular Progressives have forsaken God and not they think they are god. We are now living in a dog eat dog would where the strong get their way and the rest can just shut up, because, as Obama said …"I won".

Bill Fleming: Hate crimes legislation = Hate America

Yesterday Bill Fleming responded to my post regarding the tyrannical approach used by proponents of hate crimes with the false allegation that pro-lifers are for the right to hate. Pointing out immoral activities as being wrong and evil is not hate but an act of love. It is the hate crime proponents who hate America as they attack the First Amendment. Here is another example of that anti-American behavior (now Fleming is honoring attacks on Mount Rushmore):

The Internal Revenue Service has told members of the Coalition for Life of Iowa they would have to give up their 1st Amendment rights in order to be recognized as a non-profit organization, according to a complaint being pursued by members of the Thomas More Society.

The organization incorporated in 2004 as a not-for-profit under Iowa law and has been operating strictly within the guidelines for groups set up for religious, educational and charitable purposes, a letter sent to the IRS last week said.

"As detailed in its … narrative, the Coalition for Life carries out its tax-exempt work by sponsoring educational forums and coordinating with other like-minded groups to educate the public and otherwise promote sanctity of life principles," the letter continues.

"The Coalition is aware that from time to time, individuals who may or may not be involved with the Coalition gather for prayer outside of a Planned Parenthood facility. These gatherings are consistently small (ten or fewer people), peaceful, not in any way disrupting, and consist solely of silent and spoken prayers," the lawyer wrote.

However, an IRS agent then contacted the Coalition, through its president Susan Martinek, demanding to know whether the group "engaged in any 'picketing' or 'protest' activities at Planned Parenthood. … You then asked Ms. Martinek to have all Coalition Board members sign a statement that the Coalition will not 'picket' or 'protest' outside of Planned Parenthood or similar organizations and will not 'organize' others to do so," the law firm's letter said.

Concerned over the sudden restrictions on free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion rights, the Coalition contact legal counsel, and attorney Sally Wagenmaker said she contacted the IRS about the issue.

"You expressed the legally erroneous view that the Coalition is not allowed per se to engage in 'advocacy' as a section 501(c)(3) organization," the attorney said.

"The IRS' requests come perilously close to violating the First Amendment constitutional rights of the Coalition's supporters, and they are not otherwise germane to the Coalition for Life's pending ... application. As you acknowledged verbally to me over the telephone, the Coalition's application is now ripe for approval. The IRS's delay and questioning … constitutes unnecessary and prejudicial interference with the Coalition's legal right to a tax-exempt determination."

"This is the way government oppression creeps into a society," said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "It starts when the government targets, and attempts to intimidate and silence the grassroots dissenters who will not dance to the tune of the Obama administration’s radically pro-abortion policies."

"This is not only political intimidation by the Internal Revenue Service but it is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights," Brown said. "Neither the Coalition for Life of Iowa nor any other educational and advocacy organization should be subjected to such discriminatory scrutiny. This is a clear case of government repression."

Ginsberg, fix poverty by killing their babies

For those who can’t accept the pro-abortion movement’s comparison to Hitler, pay attention to Supreme court Judge Ruth Baser Ginsberg:

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."

Ginsburg responded:

Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.

Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

When pressed to explain what she meant by reproductive rights needing to be straightened out, Ginsburg said, "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

Washington Post influence peddling

The Wall Street Journal takes the Washington Post to task for even thinking about doing this:

Some time last week the Washington Post issued a flier advertising a "salon" on the health-care issue. Over dinner at the home of the paper's publisher, Katharine Weymouth, participants were promised "a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds."

The paper's executive editor and its "health-care reporters" would be there too, but not in a "confrontational" capacity, you could rest assured. Everything would be safely "off-the-record." And you could "bring your organization's CEO or executive director literally to the table" for a mere $25,000.

Even in Washington, it's unusual to see an actual price tag placed on a chance to "alter the debate," as the Post's flier tastefully put it. Stranger still is it to see the city's scourge of public corruption -- the Post broke the Watergate story and the Walter Reed scandal, among others -- seemingly offering its own good offices for hire.

It was a moment of rare, piquant hypocrisy. Let us take it slow and savor every drop.

To begin with, just think of the functions of righteousness that the Post effectively put up on the block. Here was journalism's zealous guardian of professional rectitude with its hand apparently out for a little bit of baksheesh. Here was the definer of the capital's consensus, the policer of its ideological boundaries, seemingly offering to adjust its vast reserves of Washington wisdom for you if the price was right.

In such a ham-handed manner, too. When the leading newspaper of the capital city of the world's most powerful country decides to turn influence-peddler, is this the best it can do? An advertisement that reads as though it were promoting expensive scotch? ("Bringing together those powerful few.") Not even favorite Post targets like Jack Abramoff stooped to that.

Even worse were the lame excuses offered by the paper's brass, who blamed one another after the embarrassing story broke and immediately cancelled the get-together. The flier hadn't been properly "vetted," they said. Ms. Weymouth had been out of town. Plus assorted other feeble explanations.

If this was a slip it was a Freudian one, the kind that tells us something true and revealing about what is going on inside.

We are living, after all, in a sort of conflict-of-interest golden age. Professionalism is for sale almost wherever you choose to look. Among the forces that most conspicuously drove the late real-estate bubble, for example, were appraisers and bond rating agencies that apparently decided to put themselves on the market.

The city of Washington is an extreme case of this marketized world. The capital swarms with hired guns, payola pundits, and think tanks on a mission. Every bad idea that has ever appealed to the funding class is well-represented here. And with the coming of the health-care debate, as the Post itself has noted, the entire apparatus has swung into well-compensated action.

Then there is the city's cult of power, in which the Post sometimes serves as high priest. Despite its many famous takedowns of the corrupt, the newspaper often seems fascinated with the lives of the rich and the well-connected: their struggles for access, the clever things they say, the trappings of their wealth, the techniques by which they have monetized their power.

Obamanomics gets scrutiny

Here are some problems with Obamanomics:

While the media stopped to cover Michael Jackson's death, several tremors rocked the foundation of something that actually affects us all – Obamanomics.

First, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who supported the president over his Republican rival, criticized Obama's spending, saying "we can't pay for it all." Powell said: "I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them. ... One of the cautions that has to be given to the president – and I've talked to some of his people about this – is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all."

Second, a few days ago, respected British economist Tim Congdon dusted off a 2003 paper – written pre-Obama spending – by the Federal Reserve's senior economist. It warned of the nation's growing debt and deficit, calculating their impact on long-term interest rates. The Fed's conclusion? "A percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio raises the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the future by 20 to 40 basis points. ... Similarly, a percentage point increase in the projected debt-to-GDP ratio raises future interest rates by about 4 to 5 basis points." In plain English, this means, as Congdon puts it, a "debt explosion." Applying the 2003 paper's calculations and assumptions to our debt and deficit numbers under Obama, Congdon sees the "horrifying" consequences of bank bailouts and increased public spending.

Third, billionaire/Obama supporter Warren Buffett warned of impending inflation caused by increased government spending. "A country that continuously expands its debt as a percentage of GDP," he said, "and raises much of the money abroad to finance that, at some point, it's going to inflate its way out of the burden of that debt. ... Every country that's denominated its debt in its own currency and has found itself with uncomfortable amounts of debt relative to the rest of the world, in the end they inflate. And that becomes a tax on everybody that has fixed dollar investments."

Fourth, the Obama-supporting/George W. Bush-hating/billionaire benefactor of hyper-liberal MoveOn.org, George Soros, predicted that the administration's spending and borrowing will trigger inflation and higher interests rates. "As markets revive," he said, "fear of inflation will drive up interest rates, which will choke off recovery."

Our country rushes ever closer to a Canadian/European economic model, where government spends a greater and greater percentage of the nation's income – whether on education, "bailing out" private companies, "assisting" states that have imprudently run their affairs, supplying "free" health care and health insurance, or the creation of "green jobs" to battle "global warming."

President Obama and the Democratic Party's congressional supermajority represent nothing less than a grave and gathering threat to that which made America great – free enterprise, competition, allowing people to keep as much of their own money as possible, and the assumption that people know better how and on what to spend their money than does government.

The Republicans – who, remember, supported the first bailout, under Bush – are only slightly better.

Anti-American group attacks Mount Rushmore

Greenpeace demonstrated their anti-American ways by attacking Mount Rushmore:

President Obama got his face on Mount Rushmore for more than an hour Wednesday morning.

Five rock climbers from Greenpeace scaled the national memorial to hang the 65-foot by 35-foot banner, which billowed next to Abraham Lincoln’s carved stone face.

The banner, a message to Obama, featured a partial portrait of the president with the message, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."

Unveiled after 10 a.m., the wind-buffeted banner dangled on the mountain for more than an hour. Greenpeace photographed the banner shortly after it was unfurled and broadcast video of the demonstration live online.

Authorities were quickly alerted to the intrusion and arrested a dozen activists involved in the demonstration, memorial spokesman Nav Singh said.

"When you have individuals who are determined, who are equipped, who are organized, who are willing to do damage to government property, there’s not many systems that are fail-safe to that," he said.

The activists did damage some government property in the effort to gain access to a controlled area, Singh said in a statement late Wednesday.

“Choice” and the socialized health care debate

Cory Heidelberger makes this argument in the Madison paper:

Thursday's editorial waves the usual red flag of terror at the prospect of government making your health care decisions. Let government pay for health care, and next thing you know, government will be telling you what doctor to see, what pills to take, and so on... so goes the usual refrain. This false thinking ignores the current reality of the for-profit insurance system, where private bureaucrats and insurance company lawyers dictate which doctors you can see and which procedures will be covered, all while devising loopholes to deny you the coverage you thought you were paying for. MDL's argument also ignores the fact that the government is us: we can exert much more control as democratic participants over a public plan run by us and our elected officials than we can exert over any private insurance company whose primary goal is to generate profit, not serve the public good.

If we are in the minority, we will be ruled by the majority. That is "not choice". Today if we don’t like a private plan we can choose another. That is "choice". WE the people dictate what coverage we have, not the one size fits all government. And the public schools proves that when we pay for government programs we don’t agree with, our only choice is to use our own money to use a private school. And that option may not even be available with Obamacare becomes fully developed.

Heidelberger pulls a Cloward-Piven

Cory Heidelberger tries to attack capitalism with this:

For those of you who insist that government always operates less efficiently than the private sector, here's your counterexample of the week: Indiana officials are considering canceling their contract with IBM to manage its welfare system. What's the problem? IBM is screwing up worse than the state ever did. In January 2007, pre-IBM, the Hoosiers mishandled 4.38% of their food stamps cases. In January 2009, IBM made boo-boos on 18.2% of food stamp cases.

"The horror stories I've heard," said Charles Warren, chairman of the Indiana Institute for Working Families' advisory committee. "Applications rejected for the flimsiest of reasons, lost paperwork, people being told to start all over again" [Will Higgins, "$1B Privatization Deal at Risk," IndyStar.com, 2009.07.08].

Gee, sounds like my experience with my previous private health insurance company.

First off, this is a public/private partnership that is fascist in nature and is not an example of free market capitalism. And then there is this from the link Cory provided:

Murphy says the new system is no worse than the previous state-run system but that the economic recession -- unemployment is 10.6 percent -- combined with last year's extensive flooding has swollen the welfare rolls and bogged down the system. In April, when FSSA last compiled its food-stamp numbers, 695,000 Hoosiers received stamps, compared with 584,000 in April 2007.

Sounds like the good old Progressive trick developed by Cloward Piven:

But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. 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.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-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. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target.

Looks like the leaches have targeted IBM’s fascist agreement with the government welfare system. And after attending the Medicaid Reimbursement legislative meeting in Pierre yesterday, I learned just how complicated the welfare system has become. Sadly, the government health care system doesn’t pay its fair share and the providers are forced to pass costs onto those who have private insurance. And then Heidelberger continues to blame private insurance for unaffordable premiums, a problem created by government intervention.

The Progressive Marxist ties of Obama & Chavez

Cliff Kincaid has a report that ties Obama to Chavez with regard to Honduras:

The Chavez goal is not just to conquer Latin America.

A leading member of the "Progressives for Obama" network is speculating, apparently with good reason, that the leftist governments of Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez have come to an understanding that Honduras should be turned over to anti-American forces allied with the Venezuelan communist ruler.

Tom Hayden, once known as Mr. Jane Fonda because of his marriage to the pro-communist actress, has written a piece for the Talking Points Memo website about "new diplomatic collaboration" between Obama-who swore an oath to represent American interests in foreign affairs-and Chavez, who represents the interests of Iran and the Castro brothers.

The destabilization of Honduras and the attempted forced return of exiled leftist president Manuel "Mel" Zelaya could represent "a new era" of friendly U.S. relations with Chavez and other anti-American governments throughout Latin America, Hayden suggests.

In a July 2 press statement, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed the hope that Obama "grows in office" and "will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya," who was deported by the military on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress for his violations of the law and the Constitution.

However, the Hayden article strongly suggests that the Obama policy is not the result of incompetence or inexperience but is deliberate in nature.

Hayden, once a famous anti-Vietnam War protester in his own right and former official of the Marxist Students for a Democratic Society, claims that "something profoundly new began developing between Obama and Chavez at the hemispheric conference in April in Trinidad.

And there are those in Honduras who are not happy about this:

But Accuracy in Media has been receiving dozens of emails from Hondurans disappointed and angry not only with the Obama policy but the media coverage of events on the ground.

In a July 6 Wall Street Journal column, Mary Anastasia O'Grady also writes about receiving complaints from Hondurans and goes on to denounce the Obama/Chavez policy as "insane." After analyzing previous U.S. policies toward Chavez, she writes, "If Washington does not reverse course, it will be one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator."

But why would Obama be appeasing Chavez? Could the "appeasement" reflect the fact that Obama and Chavez are ideologically in sync and see events in Latin America through the same Marxist lens? That is what the Hayden article suggests.

The Marxist ideological basis is a religion called Liberation Theology…Latin American Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology:

Reverend Wright is absolutely committed to what he calls "black liberation theology." Well, "liberation theology" has its roots in Latin American liberation theology.

And if you ask the average Christian leader in this country, it is way, way outside the mainstream of Christian belief, and, in fact, it's based in Marxism. At the core of his theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous.

As I have been reporting, Obama is a tyrant.

Signs of tyranny, attacks on free speech

There is a lot of talk regarding Bob Newland’s sentence for felony possession of marijuana resulting in his ban on political work regarding legalization. And here is another attack on the first amendment:

Two sides traded arguments over hate-crimes law in dueling Sioux Falls news conferences Tuesday, each warning against a loss of rights if the other prevailed.

"We will not tolerate hate perpetrated against vulnerable populations," said Karen Mudd, a board member of Equality South Dakota, which backs lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents.

An hour later, three pastors said the Senate bill would hinder their work and the testimony of those who try to live by the Bible.

"This bill infringes on a Christian's right to speak out on any type of sin. Christians should be able to speak in society and seek to change society," said pastor Matthew Haag of Grace Community Church.

The dispute concerns extending hate-crimes law to cover sexual orientation and whether that would hinder speech and religion rights of those who oppose homosexuality.

The issue divides South Dakota's members of Congress, with a Senate vote perhaps by next week.

Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson is one of 46 co-sponsors of the bill to expand protection to the gay community.

"People should not be physically attacked simply because of their race, gender, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or disability," he said in a statement.

Republican Sen. John Thune opposes the bill, saying all crimes should be prosecuted no matter the victim and a wider federal role is unnecessary.

In the House, Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted for a similar bill in April.

Obama the tyrant

David Limbaugh has a list of Obama’s abuses:

Indeed, there are so many Obama abuses I can only chronicle a fraction of them in a short column. But just consider a few others, and ask yourself how long even rank-and-file Democrats can justify supporting such tyrannical madness by this arrogant chief executive, who truly is – as distinguished from Bush – engaged in a daily quest to "dictate" fundamental, structural changes to this nation:

• ABC News reported that a senior White House official said the urgency of extending the expiring U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty "might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate's constitutional role in ratifying treaties." Did you hear that, Sens. Leahy and Feingold?

• President Obama is appointing so many "czars" to help him run the government without the usual accountability of Cabinet-level positions that even Sen. Robert Byrd said this practice "can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances." Byrd's worried, but what do Leahy and Feingold think of Obama's pay czar, who'll have broad discretion over executive pay

• Obama has so insulated himself from ordinary press scrutiny that even liberal journalists Chip Reid and Helen Thomas grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs for Obama's "tightly controlled" town hall meeting on health care. During that forum, Obama "coincidentally" called on three people (out of 200) who work with groups trying to pass his health care proposal.

• Obama is so intent on bullying our ally Israel that he is breaching a previous Bush administration-negotiated agreement between Israel and the United States to allow some Israeli construction in West Bank settlements to allow for natural growth.

• The Obama-Holder Justice Department dismissed a strong case against New Black Panther Party members for billy club-style voter intimidation because the members were intimidating for Obama's election.

• Obama and Holder are going to vacate an order of prior Attorney General Michael Mukasey's stating that immigrants facing deportation do not have an automatic right to an effective lawyer.

• Obama and Holder are now mirandizing terrorists on the battlefield.

• Some have questioned whether Obama-Holder ordered the FBI to "back off" anti-terror investigations of radicalized Muslim converts, such as the one who police say shot two military recruiters in Little Rock, Ark.

• Obama's auto task force used "intimidation tactics" against Chrysler's senior bondholders and called their Democratic lawyer, Tom Lauria, a "terrorist" for refusing to accept its offer outright. Where, by the way, were Leahy and Feingold – and all the liberal media – when Obama's deal involved an executive-forced transfer of ownership from shareholders and creditors to Obama's favored unions? Were they also unbothered by claims of Chrysler dealers that they were threatened and lied to?

• Obama's thugs fired AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin and slandered him as virtually demented because he blew the whistle on the corrupt practices of Obama's buddies.

To say this is scratching the surface is a monumental exaggeration.

NEA unhinged

Remember when one of Pat Powers’ political allies last year was the National Education Association. Here we learn just what kind of people they are:

The retiring general counsel for the National Education Association has complained that conservative "ba----ds" are picking on his powerful union, which boasts more than 3 million members who contributed "hundreds of millions" of dollars annually to its causes.

The comments came from Bob Chanin, who gave a speech at last week's convention on the occasion of his retirement.

The comments have been posted on YouTube: (Some of the language in the video will be objectionable)

According to Linda Harvey of Mission America, "His prepared remarks were peppered with profanity and reflected an arrogant, in-your-face attitude about NEA's well-known political involvement. Just listen to the You Tube. Advance to 16:00 and begin listening there."

Among Chanin's observations: "Why are these conservative and right-wing ba----ds picking on NEA and its affiliates?"

He explains it is because NEA is "the most effective union in the United States" and boasts of its "power."

Chanin said the organization was attacked under the Bush administration by the IRS and others. That will stop now under President Obama's tenure, he noted.

But, he said, "attacks by conservatives and right-wing troops will continue."

That's because the NEA has fashioned itself into "the nation's leading advocates for public education and the type of liberal social and economic agenda that these groups find unacceptable."

The speech was made at the same event at which the NEA decided to go on the record in support of laws legalizing civil unions and homosexual marriage.

According to a Baptist Press report, the union also seeks to repeal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense or Marriage Amendment.

The proposal states: "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration."