Friday, November 20, 2009

New ACORN Video And Our Corrupt Government

Watch this Hannity video on ACORN. No one in our government is doing anything to Acorn about these videos. But they are coming after the kids that shot the video. I take it that our new admin. doesn't see anything wrong with ACORN help in the illegal trade of 13 year old girls into this country. They see nothing wrong with the rape and sale of 13 year old girls being treated like a commodity instead of being treated like humans. What Roman did to that 13 year old girl was no big deal to the liberals. They backed that guy too. And we thought that idealogy stopped at the grinding up of babies in their mothers womb. What the heck if they are Christian girls being inslaved for sex slavery it's a two for deal for the liberals in power. These kids exposed the inner workings of this criminal organization ACORN and they are the ones getting sued in court. They didn't go after the Black Panthers for intimidation or have they gone after the SEIU members that beat a black man while calling him a "fucking nigger". Justice isn't blind while the Democrats are in charge.


  1. Off topic, but too good to delay. It seems Toto opened the Global Warming IPCC curtain and the little Wizard of Oz has been revealed. Read Roy Spencer below. His website is

    Global Warming’s Blue Dress Moment? The CRU EMail Hack Scandal
    November 20th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
    The recent hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system has led to the release of hundreds, if not thousands, of e-mails which — if real — reveal the tactics and motivations of some of the top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists. I hesitate to name names, but there are several websites now buzzing with all of the details and sample e-mails. The e-mails I have seen appear genuine, with obscure scientific details and language that would take considerable effort to create as part of a hoax. A few of the sites covering this unfolding story are:

    Climate Depot

    Anthony Watts: Watts Up With That?

    Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt

    Lubos Motl: The Reference Frame

    While it is too early to tell just yet, there seems to be considerable damning evidence that data have been hidden or destroyed to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data requests; data have been manipulated in order to get results that best suit the pro-anthropogenic global warming agenda of the IPCC; e-mails that contain incriminating discussions are being deleted. And, on the bright side, we skeptics seem to be quite a thorn in the side of the IPCC.

    In reading these e-mails from the ‘other side’ of the scientific debate I am particularly amazed at the mindset of a few of these scientists. I exchange e-mails with other like-minded (read ‘skeptical’) scientists, as do the IPCC scientists with their peers. But never do I hear of anyone manipulating climate data to achieve a certain end. I must say that I am pleased to see that NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth admits that it is a “travesty” that no one can explain the lack of global warming in recent years.

    I think there is a good chance that this was an inside job…either a disgruntled employee at CRU, or someone who is simply getting fed up with the politicization of the IPCC’s science and wanted to reveal some of the inner workings of the IPCC process. I’m sure that further revelations will arise in the coming days.

    As of this writing, the BBC is the first mainstream news source to cover the story. But instead of discussing the content of any of the e-mails, the BBC is focusing on the illegal nature of the computer system breach. An expert was quoted who alluded to the contentious nature of the global warming debate, and how both sides would resort to tricks to help their side.

    That’s pretty rich. If the hacked e-mails — with incriminating content — just happened to be Sarah Palin’s, does ANYONE believe that news reports would avoid disclosing the content of those e-mails?

  2. Government healthcare is such an emotionally charged issue that it's become nearly impossible for people to think about rationally, without immediately putting up ideological defenses that thwart any serious conversation regarding its merits. But the recent "Cash for Clunkers" debacle doesn't have such emotional overtones, and thus allows us a perfect example through which we can view the difference between what the liberal model of central planning and the conservative model of freedom offers the country.

    Remember the worthy objectives of this government-run program: (1) benefit the consumer by giving them a financial incentive to purchase a car; (2) benefit the auto industry by stimulating demand for cars; and (3) benefit the environment by replacing gas-guzzlers with fuel-efficient vehicles. No one can or should fault the government planners for their intentions.

    But what happened? Certainly some consumers benefited from the rebate they received for purchasing a government-approved car. But what about the consumers that didn't need cars but could have used a new refrigerator, washing machine, or oven? What made their need any less than those looking for new wheels? Why did the government need to show such favoritism, and how is it justified?

    Wouldn't the wiser path have been to take the conservatives' approach by giving all taxpayers a rebate in the form of tax cuts? Putting money back in everyone's pocket would have allowed those who wanted a car the opportunity to go buy one, as well as those who wanted to pay off debt the ability to do the same. Would that not have actually done more to stimulate economic growth instead of the liberals' attempt to specifically target one area of the economy and incentivize it?

    Liberals said that the auto industry was in excessive peril and so intentionally focusing on them was appropriate. If that's the argument, then it's helpful to see how successful the program was in benefitting the automotive industry here in America. As it turns out, it wasn't.

    Consumer Reports highlighted the embarrassing statistics: American-made cars accounted for the top ten vehicles traded in by consumers, while eight out of the top ten purchased vehicles were foreign made. What that means is that the American government used billions of taxpayer dollars to pay citizens to buy foreign cars. And that was supposed to stimulate a stagnant American auto industry? Pathetic.

    But what about dealerships? There was undoubtedly a sudden rush on auto dealerships during the two- to three-month span of the program. But it was short-lived. Whereas giving people tax cuts (again, the conservative proposal) would have had long-lasting economic benefit, the liberal solution created a instantaneous burst of economic activity that essentially crammed six months worth of sales into a small window of time.

    This didn't create any new jobs, nor did it produce any increased demand for automobiles. In fact, the only long-lasting impact it had was frustration and stress to the auto dealerships waiting for reimbursement from the ever-slow government bureaucrats administering the program. Their sluggish pace put an incredible financial burden on dealers who had to absorb costs associated with the rebate mandated by the central planners.

    Okay, so maybe the liberals failed disastrously on their first two objectives, but surely their strategic central planning achieved that most politically correct of all goals: helping the environment, right? Not exactly.

    As The Associated Press recently reported, "The most common deals under the government's $3 billion 'Cash for Clunkers' program, aimed at putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road, replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of the new federal data by the AP." Get that? People exchanged gas guzzlers for gas guzzlers, despite the planners' intentions. And it gets worse.

  3. A healthcare policy expert says there are details in the Senate healthcare bill that will frighten everyone.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has unveiled his more than 2,000-page healthcare bill with an estimated price tag of $849 billion. However, as Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute points out, one of the reasons the bill was scored under President Obama's $900 billion cost goal is because no one gets any benefit from the program until 2014.

    "So they start collecting taxes and fees now, and...the first ten years of full implementation of this bill is $2.5 trillion, and that's only the beginning," Turner explains. "So this does not in any President Obama's budget specification. And there are all sorts of tricks that they have pulled in this bill to try to pretend that it's deficit-neutral."

    Turner says although the bill is a "carefully crafted" document designed to garner as close to 60 votes as Senator Reid can, it contains lots of new taxes and $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.

    "They're assuming that Congress is going to have the will to make those cuts, which they have no track record in doing -- which means they're going to have to come back to taxpayers for more and more taxes to pay for these alleged promises of accessible healthcare for more Americans," Turner suggests.

    She further says that many promises President Obama made to the American people are broken in the Senate healthcare bill, including the notion that "if you like your current health insurance you'll be able to keep it." The Congressional Budget Office predicts that under the Senate's proposal, millions of Americans will lose the employer-based coverage they currently have.

    Healthcare dubbed too pricy
    A Mississippi senator says with a $12 trillion debt and record job-loss rate, the U.S. cannot afford the Democrats' healthcare plan.

    At a Capitol Hill rally, Senate Majority Leader Reid claimed Thursday that the $849-billion, 10-year bill he unveiled hours earlier will save lives, save money, and save Medicare. The Nevada Democrat claims the bill is not just a milestone in a journey of a few months or a few years, but rather, it culminates an effort that began over a half century ago.

    But Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) does not agree with Reid's assessment.

    "It's a terribly expensive bill," states Wicker. "I don't know how they can tout it as something that actually saves money; except that they're using a few accounting gimmicks to maybe make it look better at first. It raises taxes to a tune of half-a-trillion dollars." (Listen to audio report)

    The GOP lawmaker says there is another huge problem with the Senate bill as "it eliminates the so-called 'Stupak language' which was negotiated in the House and was designed to ensure that no taxpayer dollars go to fund abortion through these insurance plans." The Mississippi senator points out that "that language is taken out."

    Wicker is hopeful he can find at least one principled pro-life Democrat who will help Republicans prevent the bill from going forward in its present form. That one vote would be enough in the Democrat-led Senate.

  4. Pro-lifers are being called into action now that the release of the Senate's misleading version of healthcare reform has been presented.

    The Senate version of the legislation is not inclusive of the House's Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which bans federal funds for abortions. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, tells OneNewsNow this was done in spite of the fact that several polls indicate a wide majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars spent on abortion.

    "And that's why the White House and many top congressional Democrats like [Senator] Harry Reid and [Speaker of the House] Nancy Pelosi are trying so desperately to disguise what they're doing," Johnson explains. He says they are "trying to conceal these pro-abortion provisions behind layers of misleading, convoluted language and rhetoric."

    The pro-life spokesman contends, however, that an informed public will not be misled.

    "The bottom line is clear," states Johnson. "They would be creating a big, new federal insurance program, the so-called 'public option,' and they put language on page 118 of the bill that explicitly authorizes the federal secretary of Health and Human Services to cover all elective abortions in that new federal program."

    Since movement in the Senate could take place soon, Johnson is urging individuals to contact their senators and ask that federal funds be barred for abortion. He is also advising people to contact House members because whatever emerges from the Senate will go back to the House.

    Democratic disunity on abortion
    A deepening rift in the Democratic Party has developed over the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion in healthcare reform legislation. Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, says her party is having a hard time finding unity on the matter.

    "If we're serious about moving the healthcare reform bill forward, we're going to have to realize that we have pro-life Democrats within our party who feel very strongly that there should be no public funding of abortions," Day implores. (Listen to audio report)

    "Obviously that's the case because the amendment passed with 64 Democrats supporting it," she continues. "So I think as we move forward, it's going to be a very delicate conversation within our party."

    Day denies as false a recent CNN report that was quickly picked up by other news outlets claiming Democratic Senators Ben Nelson (Nebraska) and Bob Casey, Jr. (Pennsylvania) had dropped their support of the Stupak Amendment.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.