James Taranto, Online WSJ.com

 

The Acorn scandal continues to mushroom. Yesterday BigGovernment.com published videos from a fourth Acorn office visit by freelance investigators James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. As Johnny Carson used to say, it's weird, wild stuff. The woman manning the Acorn office in San Bernardino, Calif., Tresa Kaelke, responds to the pair's requests for help setting up a child-prostitution ring by claiming to be an ex-prostitute herself. "Heidi Fleiss is my hero!" she exclaims.

 

When Giles claims her former pimp abused her, Kaelke tells of having been abused by an ex-husband--then confesses to his premeditated murder. San Bernardino's finest are looking into the claim: "Investigators have been in contact with the involved party's known former husbands, who are alive and well." Thus her claims "do not appear to be factual." Politico's Ben Smith interprets this as meaning that the confession was "a joke" and writes that according to Acorn, this "demonstrates that the employee there was playing along with the outlandish visitors, not actually indulging them."

 

"She was in an office all by herself," Spach said. "She felt unsafe in their company."

Spach, who identified herself as Kaelke's supervisor, said Kaelke lied to the undercover bloggers because she was afraid and wanted to "come across as a strong individual."

 

"It was a defense mechanism," Spach said.

 

Think about it: When you feel threatened, isn't "Heidi Fleiss is my hero" the first thing you blurt out? Read article.

Morris & McGann, Vote.com

 

As any good Persian rug dealer knows, you have to hold back a bargaining chit so that you can whip it out at the very end to tie down the sale. That's how Obama is playing the so-called public option in his health care program. His plan seems to be to combine its abandonment with some form of tort reform and try to buy off some Republicans - maybe only Maine's Olympia Snowe - to give moderate Democrats enough confidence in the veneer of bi-partisanship to win their backing for his bill.

 

But it's a fraud and a trick.

 

Here's why:

 

(a) Whether or not there is a public option makes no difference in the fundamental objection most elderly have to the bill - that it guts Medicare and Medicaid. All of the bills now under consideration cut these two programs by one half of a trillion dollars. And all of them require the medical community to serve thirty to fifty million new patients without any concomitant growth in the number of doctors or nurses. These cuts and shortages will lead to draconian rationing of medical care for the elderly, whether under a public option or not. Read article.

Richard Olivastro, Townhall.com

 

“A lot of seniors do not know what’s coming down the pike… When they hear (about it) they’re going to be upset,” said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

 

Sander’s statement refers to last month’s projection by the Social Security trustees that there will not be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years.

 

While historically a small amount, each Social Security cost-of-living adjustment is a big deal for America’s senior citizens.

 

As well it should be.

 

Seniors living on a limited, fixed income face multiple financial decisions several times each day. Most revolve around what food is available to eat that day and what household utility bill payments they have to juggle each month in order to have something to eat.

 

In a growing number of cases, “three squares” is a long-gone practice that’s no longer possible. Rent, taxes and personal health-care expenses are other living cost drivers.

 

Coming on the heals of the still-unfolding debacle called Health Care Reform, in which many of America’s seniors feel they have been targeted, this latest misstep singling out seniors will increase conviction on the part of those seniors that, perhaps, they are indeed in the administration’s crosshairs. That cannot be good for our senior citizens or for any of us. Read article.

Gerald A. Honigman, NMJ.us

 

Hey, let's face it. Much of the world still prefers its Jews ghetto style, groveling Uncle Abes instead of Uncle Toms (note: the very word "ghetto" was originally coined for the Jewish experience).

 

Ironically, of all world leaders, the current American president should be tuned in to this problem the most; Instead, he's among the worst offenders when it comes to this.

 

Recently the Obama White House rebuked Israel because it refuses to prostrate itself and say, "whatever you say, boss!"

 

On September 4th, Associated Press writer Matthew Lee reported that, "the White House said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's settlement plans were 'inconsistent' with commitments the Jewish state has made previously and harmful to U.S. attempts to lay the groundwork for a resumption in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians."

 

Israel is entitled to a fair, territorial compromise in territories that it has been repeatedly attacked from and has thousands of years of historical connections to.

 

That Arabs--who claim the entire region as solely their own and who have continuously subjugated scores of millions of native, non-Arabs who have dared to disagree--refuse such a compromise is no shock. They refuse to recognize a sole, miniscule, 9-mile wide state for Jews let alone anything larger, while demanding a 22nd state of their own-- second, not first, Arab one created in the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine.

 

Demanding that Israel expose itself to those who want it destroyed--despite the word games of Abbas's "moderates"--needs to be rebuked...not Israel's refusal to cave in to America's first black president by saying, "yes, Massah." Read article.

 

Dan Kennedy, Townhall.com

 

"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact," said Sherlock Holmes. This explains, I guess, how so many independent voters, moderate Democrats and even moderate Republicans were deceived by the Obama who campaigned for the presidency.

 

The outrageous, obscenely anti-American radical Van Jones has been driven from the White House, tail tucked between his legs, and, yes, that's something to celebrate. It suggests there is a limit even to what President Obama can get away with. It should encourage opposition to other such far-left ideologues, czars with criminal or Communist backgrounds, and policy experiments promising the destruction of entire segments of American society or business, such as the health care takeover.

 

But we shouldn't be popping champagne corks just yet. As I pointed out in my column here a few weeks back, Obama has amassed the most amazing political slush fund in history; a mountain of money with which to influence the upcoming 2010 elections. That slush fund is an estimated $600-billion of, incredibly, still unspent emergency stimulus funds plus $200-million repaid TARP funds, and it’s only growing.

 

Obama is still surrounded by, and committed to, advisors from the lunatic fringe of radically liberal politics. Read article.

 

Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org

 

The great French diplomatist Talleyrand put it best: "That's worse than a crime, it's a mistake."

 

 By accepting the Iranian proposal for negotiations, the Obama Administration has just made the most important foreign policy decision of its term so far. And it is a very bad mistake, a very bad one indeed.

 

True, the idea of engagement was a U.S. idea. The Iranian regime ignored it for months. And then at the very last moment, the Tehran government sent a five-page letter calling for talks. The letter didn’t even mention the nuclear program as a topic. Shouldn’t that be enough to reject it as insufficient?

 

Everyone should understand the timing of this letter. On one hand, it came after the most extreme government in two decades took over that country; after a stolen election; after the repression of peaceful demonstrations; after the show trials of reform-minded oppositionists, and after the appointment of a wanted terrorist as minister of defense.

 

Never have prospects for negotiations resolving U.S.-Iran differences, including the nuclear program, seemed poorer.

 

At the same time, the United States was finally on the verge of raising sanctions against Iran. True, the increase was insufficient and neither Russia nor China was on board. Yet this was going to be a major step.

 

Never have prospects for the Obama Administration making some real effort to confront Iran and press for ending the nuclear program seemed better.

 

Now this whole U.S. strategy has been swept away by no one other than the U.S. government itself.

 

Tom DeWeese, NWV,cin

 

So how is this wrenching transformation being put into place? There are four very specific routes being used.

 

In the rural areas it’s called the Wildlands Project. In the cities it’s called smart growth. In business it’s called Public/Private Partnerships. And in government it’s called stakeholder councils and non-elected boards and regional government.

 

The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land.

 

It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast.

 

From the demented mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. So now the scheme is international in scope.

 

But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity. How about Yellowstone National Park? Then you establish a buffer zone around the reserve. Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, you squeeze until you squash that human activity.

 

Once accomplished, you extend the area of the biosphere to the limits of the former buffer area – and then you create a new buffer zone around the now larger biosphere and start the process over again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped. Read article.

 

Gordon Crovitz, Online WSJ.com

 

The equivalent of the health-care debate a few years ago was the battle over the McCain-Feingold law, which was supposed to be the most important political reform in a generation. Instead, technology has already made this law outdated.

 

McCain-Feingold, passed in 2002, limited spending on political advocacy by corporations and unions. In the era of YouTube and Facebook, the notion that anyone or any institution can dominate political debate is quaint at best.

 

After last week's Supreme Court argument, key parts of McCain-Feingold seem likely to be overturned. The justices are legal experts, not technologists, but in protecting constitutional rights, they know they are operating in a very different information environment than existed earlier in the decade.

 

Lively political debate is supposed to benefit everyone—with the occasional exception of incumbent officeholders who are not re-elected. But McCain-Feingold banned the broadcast or transmission by cable or satellite of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary or 60 days before the general election. This always raised a First Amendment issue.

 

The issue now goes deeper. Read article.

 

Tony Rubolotta, NMJ.us

 

Creating moral confusion is a tactic used to create moral paralysis. Once paralyzed, the subject can be led in whatever direction the creator of moral confusion chooses, or at least neutralized to not resist. I’m sure every member of every lynch mob would claim they were doing what was right and so obviously right that due process wasn’t necessary. It only takes one or two people to create enough moral confusion that the mob can then be led in whatever direction the leaders choose. The mob may have regrets later when emotion gives way to reflection and reason, but the evil deed once done cannot be undone.

 

The bedrock of American morality has been the Judeo-Christian ethic and tradition, and that alone has been the source of our wealth and strength, and the greatest obstacle to a socialist totalitarian state. The conflict that started in the Garden of Eden has spread to every locale on Earth, including both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The forbidden fruit offered by the mob leaders may be different but the outcome will be the same. As deficient and imperfect as our little piece of Eden may be, even that will be lost. In the latest push for Obamacare, the serpents have appealed to the churches of America to enlist their aid. It appears the Catholic Bishops of America have taken a bite and succumbed to the moral confusion incited by the mob leaders.

 

The Catholic Bishops endorse Obamacare because they view it as an act of Christian charity. Providing the poor with medical services is a worthy cause, or so says the serpent. The bishops are biting the apple and ignoring the worms that riddle its flesh. They chose to ignore the means, because they have become morally confused by the ends. Charity is a virtue, but what means are required to achieve the serpent’s charitable ends?

 

The Catholic Bishops endorse Obamacare because they view it as an act of Christian charity. Providing the poor with medical services is a worthy cause, or so says the serpent. The bishops are biting the apple and ignoring the worms that riddle its flesh. They chose to ignore the means because they have become morally confused by the ends. Charity is a virtue, but what means are required to achieve the serpent’s charitable ends? Read article.

 

Bernie Reeves, American Thinker.com

 

Saving the planet has grabbed the imagination of the naïve in the same grip as the old worker's paradise promised by the Bolsheviks.

 

These two manifestoes share the common elements of absurdity, dogmatic conviction and the predictable dimension that the more their doctrines are proved false, the more their advocates defend them. In the case of Bolshevism, people's courts, midnight executions and propaganda were the instruments of coercion; in the case of man-made global warming, it's the Internet, politicized scientists and a mentally disabled mainstream media.

 

Disciples of world communism actually believed the workers of the world would unite and rule the planet with wisdom and generosity. Even in the wake of 100 million deaths in the name of communism, most left-leaning devotees supported the principles of the USSR until the regime fell in a rubble from within. The rise and fall of Bolshevism took just over seven deadly decades. If the man-made global warming movement takes that long, more than 100 million could die before it's over, mostly from starvation caused by the end of free market capitalism -- this time on the chopping block for raping Mother Earth and exploiting the proletariat.

 

While we wait for the end of times, look for other similarities. For example, the Communists were great liars. Read article.

 

Sharon North, NMJ.us

 

Mr. President, please sit down and remain silent—for at least one week. Your vocal meanderings are not only becoming tiresome but are now repetitive falsehoods, broken promises and violations of your oath of office.

 

I will remain unrepentant, unlike Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina, because I do not believe Americans must apologize for disagreeing with someone, even the US President. Your policies are stifling, self-serving and for what we the people know to be contrary to the form of government chosen by this country.

 

Troublesome is the escalation of hiring “czars” and special advisors who are Socialists or far left radicals (by their own admission) left over from the 1960s. Even more troublesome is the increasing number of practicing avowed Communists among your choices, like Van Jones.

 

Your policies are an affront to the intelligence of patriotic, loyal Americans. These same policies and legislated inequities are a consistent contradiction of words spoken in your speeches from the campaign trail to the present.

 

The latest was the stand on healthcare by your administration. Congress is using the same tired “blame game.” When will Democrats take responsibility for their own actions, especially the mistakes? The Bush Administration is ancient history. The policies enacted by the 111th Congress, or more specifically, unsuccessful measures enacted supposedly to correct President Bush’s errors, are failing just as badly despite protests to the contrary. Read article.

 

Cheri Jacobus, JWR.com

 

Start with a clean slate on healthcare. Include Republicans in the process. Act like you were listening to the American people who showed up in droves at August town hall meetings on healthcare. Do something, Mr. President, to illustrate you are more committed to the American people than to a political victory.

 

The majority of Americans are unhappy with the manner in which President Barack Obama has handled healthcare reform - 52 percent, according to a new Associated Press poll. Not one Republican in Congress supports any of the bills out of the various committees in the House and Senate. And Obama arrogantly shut out all Republicans, avoiding meetings with GOP leaders regarding healthcare legislation since April.

 

A president who thumbs his nose at the other party on such a hugely important issue as healthcare reform, ignores the cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), blames massive public opposition to his proposal on special interests, the gullibility of the American people, Republican scare tactics, Fox News, talk radio, etc., makes it clear why he is tanking in the polls. Stubbornly refusing to accept that Americans oppose ObamaCare is bad enough.

 

Entertaining a plan to ram it through Congress by way of reconciliation, requiring only 51 votes instead of 60, is political lunacy and possibly borderline immoral. Read article.

 

William J. Kole, Breitbart.com

 

Czechs feel betrayed, Poles irked, Romanians slighted. Ask them who's to blame, and the answer may come as a surprise: President Barack Obama.

George W. Bush fawned over Eastern Europe, and its leaders rushed to join his post-9/11 "coalition of the willing." Now many—officials and ordinary citizens alike—are grumbling over what they perceive as the Obama administration's neglect.

 

It's a startling shift in a region long accustomed to cozy ties with the United States. "Now we see the beginning of indifference," said Tudo Salajean, a Romanian historian and researcher.

 

At times, and from some corners, the new mood can even border on hostile. Obama's approaches to pressing world problems "aren't worth a moldy onion," declared Mircea Mihaies, deputy head of the Romanian Cultural Institute. Two in three Bulgarians, Czechs, Poles and Romanians approve of Obama's foreign policy, according to a survey published earlier this month by the German Marshall Fund, a nonpartisan policy group. That may seem robust, but it pales in comparison to backing for Obama in Western Europe, where nine in 10 respondents support him.

 

Two in three Bulgarians, Czechs, Poles and Romanians approve of Obama's foreign policy, according to a survey published earlier this month by the German Marshall Fund, a nonpartisan policy group. That may seem robust, but it pales in comparison to backing for Obama in Western Europe, where nine in 10 respondents support him. Read article.

 

Print This E-mail This

Share It: