mike from nc's blog

     The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads;

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Ratified 12/15/1791 

     In direct contradiction to that right, here is part of a press release from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, issued Sep 21, 2009;

Medicare today called on Medicare-contracted health insurance and prescription drug plans to suspend potentially misleading mailings to beneficiaries about health care and insurance reform. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently asked Humana, Inc. to end similar mailings. Humana has agreed to do so.

     The problem started when the huge insurance company Humana, Inc. had the audacity to send an informational letter to its health insurance customers. Humana is the company that manages health plans for Medicare beneficiaries. In the letter, the customers were informed that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals" could lose "important benefits and services" under the reform proposals being considered by Congress. The customers were urged to contact their congressional representatives over their concerns.

      Well, that explains it. We can’t have all the common citizens running around all over the place with actual information. They must accept what they are told by Washington and be happy with it.  

     These are private companies, owned and operated by private American citizens. The federal government has told those companies, operated by those United States citizens, to shut up. Apparently the first amendment doesn’t protect their speech, unless that speech agrees with the government. 

Media Research Center President Brent Bozell asks – “Where is the outrage from the media on this abuse of power? Here we have an orchestrated and deliberate attempt to keep American citizens in the dark, particularly vulnerable seniors. Their very health is at risk, yet all but ABC have chosen to keep their audiences in the dark about this abuse. If they aren't willing to probe and at least question the administration on this blatant offense, what else are they shoving under the rug”?

I can’t believe this is happening here in the Land of the Free. America had better wake up in a hurry.

Read more at http://commonconservativesense.com 

 Former President Jimmy Carter once again embarrassed himself, and frankly, the nation last week. Stretching way into the deck to play the race card over Congressman Joe Wilson’s “You lie” remark, Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American." And this pearl of wisdom as he continued, "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.""I think it's based on racism," Carter said at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

Well Mr. Carter, I live in the south, too, and I say you are just a clueless old man who should go back to peanut farming since you apparently have nothing intelligent to say. There is an “inherent feeling” among anybody with an IQ in triple digits that you should just shut up. I apologize to the Office of the Presidency for that language, but I just can’t muster any respect for a lying race baiter. There is absolutley no evidence that Wilson’s comment had anything whatsoever to do with race. Nor is the national opposition to Obama’s heath care proposals based on race. It’s based on a belief that nationalization of health care is a bad idea. I was against it when Hillary tried it in the early nineties, too. Was I racist then? Mr. Carter continues to proudly display his incompetence and irrelevance for all to see.I get so sick of this disengenuous garbage from people like Carter when they imply that conservatives in general and Republicans specifically are racist. Maybe it’s time for a little history lesson for the former president. 

In 1964, it took the leadership of Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to break the Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. That filibuster was led by current Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and then Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee. In the Senate, only six Republicans voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, compared to twenty-one Democrats in opposition. In the House, 40% of the Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act, while only 20% of Republicans opposed it. And yes, that would be the same Democrat Senator Byrd who was a proud former member of the KKK.

Were Republicans racist when they named the first two black Secretaries of State, Powell and then Rice, to office? Were they racist when they put the first black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, in place? Would it be fair to say the Democrats were racist when they publicly and unjustifiably vilified Justice Thomas and his family? I make no such claim, but I have no doubt it would have been claimed by the Democrats had the roles been reversed. Does the average liberal genius Democrat out there even know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican?

Was Democrat former President Clinton racist when he said that William Fulbright was a visionary and was a hero to him? Fulbright was a vehement segregationalist and was one of the Democrats opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.Carter’s own abysmal record on things racial brings into question his standing to criticize anyone regarding such issues. When Carter returned to Georgia after his Navy tour, he became a member of the Sumter County School Board. As documented in the National review Online (Sep. 18, 2009) “Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Project, relates in his book A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia, Carter’s board tried to stop the construction of a new “Elementary Negro School” in 1956. Local white citizens had complained that the school would be “too close” to a white school. As a result, “the children, both colored and white, would have to travel the same streets and roads in order to reach their respective schools.” The prospect of black and white children commingling on the streets on their way to school was apparently so horrible to Carter that he requested that the state school board stop construction of the black school until a new site could be found. The state board turned down Carter’s request because of “the staggering cost.” Carter and the rest of the Sumter County School Board then reassured parents at a meeting on October 5, 1956, that the board “would do everything in its power to minimize simultaneous traffic between white and colored students in route to and from school.”

And this from noted Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz in Frontpage Magazine, April 27, 2007, “If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.”

Carter had a cozy, personal relationship with former Palestinian dictator Yassir Arafat. In fact, he seems to have some affinity for thug dictators around the world, chumming with the likes of Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, former Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito, former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, former Pakistani General Zia ul-Haq, former North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and now his son Kim Jong Il, among others. His anti-Israel positions are well documented, including in his own book, "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid." As an author, Mr. Carter has the dubious distinction of having his book an the must read list of none other than Osama bin Laden.

Jimmy Carter is widely accepted as the worst U.S. President ever. His attempts at Middle East peace were jokes to everyone except him and the Nobel prize committee. His term was a disaster, and he went downhill from there. He has no credibility to be critical of anyone regarding race relations, or frankly, anything else. Just retire already.

read more at http://commonconservativesense.com 

 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi became emotional when making reference to American citizens who voice their concerns over the health care debacle.

Pelosi said, “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco,” Her voice quivered and she blinked back tears. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made."

Yes Madam Speaker, it was indeed tragic when those heavy metal staples ripped up the body of San Francisco Police Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell who was working at police headquarters at Park Station. That bombing in your town was determined by the FBI to be the handiwork of the Weather Underground. That’s the group that Bill Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist and good buddy of President Obama, was such an integral part of. Oh,…that isn’t what you were referring to?

I’m sorry, apparently she was referring to the 1978 murders of City Supervisor Harvey Milk (gay rights activist) and Mayor George Moscone in San Francisco. The gay rights community saw evidence of a link between the murders and the violent gay rights protests going onat the time. Yes, Madam Speaker, that too was a tragedy. I guess the police station bombing must have slipped your mind.

Speaker Pelosi did acknowledge that here in America we have the right to speak our mind. (at least for the time being) Then she cautioned that we should also be held accountable for anything that happens as a result of our words.

This from the same woman who referred to about half of the citizens in this great land as Nazis. "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare" she said, referring to American protestors at a town hall style meeting on health care reform, although she never produced any evidence to support that.

Madam Speaker, in my humble opinion, the real frightening thing here is that you are third in line to the Presidency. As Speaker, you hold great power over the direction and progress of Congress. And that is terrifying. 

more at http://commonconservativesense.com

When Senator and former presidential contender John McCain proposed taxing health benefits, then candidate Obama minced no words when voicing his opposition.  Last September, while speaking in Dover, Delaware candidate Obama said, “… I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can’t make that pledge, and here’s why: for the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits Apparently, Senator McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too. That’s a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle class families. That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes. That’s his idea of change.” Then, in March, President Obama took a different tone altogether. Ceci Connolly, Washington Post writer, reported the following on June 3, 2009. “President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage.” Today, Bloomberg.com reports, “Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus unveiled a plan to overhaul the health-care system that would mandate insurance for almost all Americans, impose a tax on health insurers and possibly cut the federal deficit. According to a “very preliminary” estimate by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, Baucus’s proposal would raise $259 billion in taxes, mostly from imposing a 35 percent excise tax on insurers that offer health plans valued at more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for couples.” That’s the ticket – tax the insurance companies. I’m sure they’ll just eat that loss, surely they won’t pass the cost along to the customers. Liberals, I have a news flash for you. Individuals pay ALL taxes, whether directly or indirectly. I’d say Obama has the change part of his slogan covered. He changed his tax policy on heath benefits 180 degrees. It’s the hope part he still needs to work on. At least he can continue to claim transparency. This scam is visible from a mile away. More at http://commonconservativesense.com

Every time I see a pro Obama bumper sticker on a car in traffic, I can’t help but wonder about the driver. I wonder if they are embarrassed to have people see the sticker. I wonder if they forgot it was there, or else they would have removed it. I just can’t understand why anybody would be proud of Obama at this point, and especially how anybody would boast of being a supporter at this point. If I had voted for him, I would want to keep that quiet. Do they really not know that other drivers around them are leaning to get a look at them while shaking their heads and wondering, “What is wrong with you?” or “What were you thinking?” I can’t help but wonder if maybe it isn’t their car and they are just hoping nobody sees them in it.

           Where are the decent, rational, thinking, freedom loving Democrats? I know they are out there. Do any of them have the guts to stand up and be counted? Of that I’m beginning to wonder. I cannot imagine that there are not great numbers of every day Americans who also happen to be Democrats that are deeply concerned with the direction President Obama is leading our country. We can debate conservative versus liberal ideology all day long, and I’m happy to do that. But this runaway train led by Obama is beyond all that.

          This administration is trying to fundamentally change America. Obama is a radical leftist, a statist. He has surrounded himself with radical statists. He has stated his desire to remake America. The point of this piece is not to define the agenda of the Obama administration. That is being done all over the place, and thank God for that. I want to know if and when mainstream Democrats are going to wake up, stand up, and reject this garbage. Obama told the American people that if they wanted to know who he was, to look at the people he had surrounding him. Okay, we looked, and it stinks. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN, the radicals and tax cheats in his cabinet and czar positions, and more.     

         How obvious does it have to be? When is the evidence overwhelming enough? Democrats, your party has been hijacked. It’s been happening for a long time, but it has reached critical mass. Nobody gets to sit on the fence any more. You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem.

         At this point in the Obama administration’s tenure, I can see only three possibilities for why democrats have not joined the chorus against the statist crusade.

1)      they are ignorant

2)      they are apathetic

3)      they are true believers

         It’s hard to imagine anyone truly being ignorant with all the information available, although dependence on the mainstream media will certainly leave one ignorant. But there is just too much being said and written to not at least get some sense of what direction things are going. I include those who may still be deluded as to Obama’s real agenda as being in the ignorant category, but that excuse is getting very thin, very quickly. Apathy is worse than ignorance. At least ignorance is an excuse, albeit a lazy one. To be apathetic at this point is to be devoid of passion for anything. If it doesn’t matter to you yet, you may want to check for a pulse. True believers can at least be credited for taking a side. That’s about all they can get credit for, but it’s something.

         So where are the reasonable, non radical, America loving democrats? We, the opposition, welcome you. We need you. Find your voice, find your conviction, find your courage, and stand up for America.

         In the weeks and months after September 11, 2001, it didn’t matter much if we were Republicans or Democrats, conservative or liberal, what mattered was that we were Americans. America had been attacked and we rallied together to defend her. Well, America is under attack again. Not our buildings, not our very lives, but our principles, our values, and our way of life. Our traditions, our history, the very things that have made America great are being dismantled by this administration. It is time for Americans to once again stand together and defend her. Lose the bumper sticker and get a flag.

More at http://commonconservativesense.com

Okay, I got the first half of my prediction right. Jones has resigned. Now we wait on the excuses and the accusations of racism. Now we get told why his failure was our fault. Conservatives are to blame because we are so closed-minded. We simply haven't reached the level of intellectual enlightenment that would allow us to realize what a gem we had in Van Jones. If only we could have opened our minds and put our innate prejudices aside, we would have been blessed by Jones' visionary brilliance.

Yeah, right. Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Liberals are so predictable.

more at http://commonconservativesense.com

Does anybody care to prognosticate about the imminent departure of Czar Van Jones?

My prediction – He will not make it through September, and it will be blamed on racist conservatives who couldn’t stomach a black man in a position of power.

Any takers?

more at http://commonconservativesense.com

President Obama will address the nation’s school children on Tuesday. I guess that would be fine if he were doing it at a time when parents and their children could gather around the television and listen and discuss it together. Or when parents could decide they didn’t want their children to listen to the President at all. But there is something creepy about the President of the United States going live on television into our schools during a normal school day. That sounds like something Chairman Mao might do. What’s next? His face painted on the side of buildings all over town? Why is President Obama taking this time? Is his ego really that bloated? What does he have to say to our kids that is so important, so worthwhile, that the learning process has to be suspended to accommodate it? Why does he want to talk to them without their parents around?

 That will be time that no math will be learned, no science will be taught, no language skills learned. (I would say it would be a time when no history will be taught, but that seems to be the case already.) If he wants to encourage them to stay in school, to study hard and to strive toward good grades – great. But he can do that with a Public Service Announcement.

I don’t intend to allow my children to participate unless I’m allowed to be with them. Obama is not a teacher, so he is not the reason my sons are in school. He will be interfering with the reason they are there. I’m equally concerned about how the teachers will handle the affair. There are some conservative teachers, but academia is clearly a stronghold of liberalism. The idea that the president’s message may be innocuous and benign is not the point. If this precedent is established, that may not always be the case. This is a bad idea, and shouldn’t happen. Our schools should at least try to be propaganda free zones.

I suggest finding out if your kid’s school will be participating. If so, see if you can go with your kids. If that doesn’t work, maybe we should all find some real educational activity for our kids – away from school.

Here is the “study guide” from the White House suggested to be used in conjunction with the speech;

During the Speech:

• As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:

What is the President trying to tell me?

What is the President asking me to do?

What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

• Students can record any questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions.

After the Speech:

• Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.• Students could discuss their responses to the following questions:

What do you think the President wants us to do?

Does the speech make you want to do anything?

Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

In the interest of real learning, I suggest a few additional talking points;

• Can you find which part of the Constitution allows the president to use tax dollars to buy banks, car companies, and insurance companies?
• Where does the federal government get the authority to implement health care policies for the citizenry?
• Where does the President plan to put the war prisoners when he closes the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
• Why did the President call the policeman stupid when he arrested the professor in Massachusetts?
• Where is the President going to get all the money he needs to pay for all the stuff he is buying?

That should make for an interesting afternoon discussion time, don’t you think?

more at http://commonconservativesense.com

Earlier this year,  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to prosecute members of the Black Panthers who dressed in paramilitary garb outside a Philadelphia polling place last November. The men were brandishing night sticks, pointing them at people, and making racial threats. In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In May, Holder's Justice Department, against the advice of it's own attorneys, dropped the lawsuit, even though the defendants made no response, meaning Justice would have won by default.

Then, on February 17, 2009,  Mr. Holder enlightened us regarding his opinion of the racial progress we have failed to make as a nation. “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, a nation of cowards,” Holder said in remarks to his staff in honor of Black History Month. His comments appear on a transcript provided by the Justice Department.

Earlier in his career,  Holder played a critical role in the pardon of Marc Rich under former President Clinton. Rich was a commodities trader who was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of tax evasion and other crimes. He fled to Switzerland prior to being prosecuted where he avoided extradition. He eventually arranged to be represented by Jack Quinn, formerly a Clinton White House counsel. Quinn went straight to Holder, then Clinton's deputy attorney general. According to Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, "Holder was not just an integral part of the pardon process, he provided the White House with cover by offering his go-ahead recommendation. No alarm seemed to sound for him. Not only had strings been pulled, but it was rare to pardon a fugitive -- someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial."

Now, Mr. Holder has indicated he plans to investigate members of the Central Intelligence Agency regarding coercive interrogation techniques, namely water-boarding, against terror suspects. At the end of August, he announced his plan to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct the investigations, over the public protests of Leon Panetta, Obama's head of the C.I.A. In fact, President Obama himself has said his desire was not to look back but to move forward. The fact that crucial information was obtained, preventing American deaths and aiding in thedefeat of Al-Queda, seems to have become irrelevant. Besides, this investigation has already been done once by the Justice Department, and with one exception, there was nothing to prosecute.

So, our U.S. Attorney General refuses to prosecute clear and obvious voter intimidation, even when the case is pre-won. He apparently has no issue with tax evasion and fugitives from justice, and believes we are a nation of cowards, racially speaking. But he is eager to investigate the American patriots who obtained critical information from terrorists who want nothing more than to kill Americans and to destroy our way of  life. How does this make us safer? How does this further the pursuit of justice?

Is there anybody in this administration that doesn't think Americans are the bad guys?

 How's that hope and change working out for you?

Marxism is the extreme of socialism, whereby the state owns and controls all the means of production and thereby the entire economy of the state. Most forms of Marxism share the idea that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production. Marxism takes a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change. Marxist economics is based on the idea that capitalism is by nature exploitative and conflict driven, and will ultimately fail on its own. This failure will be brought about by a worker revolt against the ruling class, with the ultimate outcome being a classless society.

Liberalism in America has, over the last fifty years or so, successfully created the notion that there are two Americas. The haves and the have nots, the greedy rich and the oppressed poor. It is the working definition of class struggle and conflict. Liberalism has taught that the rich gained their wealth on the backs of the poor, by taking advantage of their effort and insuring that they were not able to rise out of their poverty. Liberalism has purported to be the means by which the poor and oppressed will gain equality with the wealthy. However, liberal policies attempt to force this not by adding wealth to the poor, but by taking wealth from the wealthy. If Joe Liberal has $10 and Bob Capitalist has $100, liberalism wants to take $90 from Bob, so that Joe and Bob are equal. Equal they are, but neither is better off. In fact they are both worse off, because now Bob no longer has the resources to invest so that he and Joe can gain wealth, or at least have a chance to gain it. The state is the only winner. Liberalism has been an abject failure in the arena of effective policies that work to elevate the condition of the poor and society in general. But it has been very, very successful in creating the class struggle and conflict which is necessary to move to the next step.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama, ultra liberal and radical, with an agenda to remake America. Marxism is big on state ownership of all means of production. So far there is at least partial state ownership of the major banking institutions, insurance companies and  automobile manufacturers. The current push is for state ownership of our health care system, or about 15% of the entire economy. Obama is closely aligned with labor unions (more us vs. them mentality) as is the democratic party in general. He is unashamed of his philosophy for wealth redistribution. (remember Joe the Plumber?) He is friendly with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. He is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. For twenty years he belonged to a church where Rev. Jeremiah Wright frequently and openly bashed America. Now he has appointed over 30 czars who are unelected and unaccountable to anybody but him. One of those czars is Van Jones; Green Jobs Czar. Van Jones has an interesting past. He was arrested in 1993 at the L. A. riots after the Rodney King incident. He was arrested again in 1999 in Seattle during the World Trade Organization protests. Note this excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express: While describing his jail experiences, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, this is what I need to be a part of."  Jones already had a job in Washington, DC and had rented an apartment there. He decided to stay in San Francisco even though he already had his plane ticket. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, he and other young activists formed Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, a socialist collective which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.  (emphasis is mine)

Is Obama a Marxist? I don't know. Let me rephrase the question - if it was a felony to be a Marxist, would there be enough evidence to support an indictment against him? Maybe.

Pay attention to what he does, his associations, and his appointments - not just what he says.

Another question - just for kicks, let's say you were a committed Marxist, and that you had a vision of a Marxist America. Let's assume you had the means, the time, and were patient. Just how would you go about making your vision a reality?

More at http://commonconservativesense.com