 |
August 13th, 2009Open Source & Copyright Free "Right-Wing
Extremists" Descend Upon Town Halls Nationwide Health
Care "Compromise" A Poison Pill For Small Business Obama
Up, Economy Down ALG
in the News: ALG's Wilson demands Napolitano resignation for using
'kook website' "Right-Wing Extremists" Descend Upon Town Halls NationwideBy Robert Romano Patriotic Americans nationwide have descended upon town halls and Congressional district offices for the past two weeks to express their displeasure with Barack Obama's monocratic health care takeover. And for their efforts, they have been condemned and ridiculed by their own elected representatives as "un-American," "political terrorists," "uncivilized," and "Brown Shirts." Not to mention, "rightwing extremists". The fact is, these despicable comments—made by members of Congress referring to passionate constituents who rightly want their representatives to listen to them for a change—are nothing short of an all-out assault on the American people. And they are being orchestrated by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack "Punch Back" Obama. Unfortunately, they are not without precedent. Comparisons have even been made by one Congressman to domestic terrorists. Congressman Brian Baird (WA-CD3) said, referring to ObamaCare opponents, "Some of the rhetoric that we're hearing is… eerily reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma." Simply stunning. But again, not without precedent. In fact, some of the rabid rhetoric to which Americans are being subjected—from members of Congress—is eerily reminiscent of a so-called "threat" assessment issued by the Department of Homeland Security back in April. Remember, this was the same memo that defined "rightwing extremist" as "groups, movements, and adherents… that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority" and "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." Hmm, kind of like those "Brown Shirts" (to use Brian Baird's term) descending upon town halls nationwide. Of course, this is the same memo that has now been discredited. After filing a Freedom of Information Act Request with the Department of Homeland Security into the methodology used, Americans for Limited Government has learned that no intelligence sources were utilized. No crime data or statistics. In short, no evidence of any planned attacks or active recruitment by groups known to have planned attacks. As ALG President Bill Wilson, yesterday on the Fred Thompson show, explained, "They gave local law enforcement in effect a green light to say, 'Okay, there's a pro-gun group,' or 'there's a group that believes in the 10th Amendment' and, you can now at least watch them and consider them as possible domestic terrorist incubators. Meanwhile, they had no data, they had no analysis. They had nothing but the ranting and raving of lunatics on the left as their 'back-up.' It's worse than political propaganda. It really smacks of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro-type of things." The FOIA response from the Department related to "All data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data created or reviewed by the Department in general to draft the Report… [and] on the specific groups listed in the footnote on page 2 of the Report that were used by the Department." Those studies and reports included 217 pages, "releasable in their entirety, all of which are publicly available," according to the DHS FOIA response. All of the data used by the Department are available via the Internet. A summary of those web-links is included here. As it turns out, the data, studies, and reports used by DHS were largely gathered from hard left groups like the fund-raising front Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and even one crackpot "news service" that once reported that a U.S. scientist had destroyed a "radio to God." William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration said it was no coincidence that the SPLC was cited as top sources by DHS. "It's been very clear to us that the SPLC, ADL, and now unfortunately, DHS are interested in politicizing American law enforcement in a way that hasn't happened since Germany and the Soviet Union in the 1930's and '40's," Gheen said in an exclusive interview with ALG News. Gheen said that he believed the same individuals who were responsible for drafting the controversial "rightwing extremism" memo were also responsible for a very similar threat assessment issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a so-called federal fusion center, in February entitled "The Modern Militia Movement." In this "threat" advisory, police were told to keep an eye out for Americans who were highly concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve. Hmm, just like some of those "nuts" at the town halls the members of Congress have grown to hate. The MIAC advisory also stated that potential domestic terrorists would be attracted to gun shows, shortwave radios, action movies, movies with white male heroes like Rambo, Tom Clancy novels, and presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin. Much like the DHS memo, SPLC was cited as a top source of information. And much like the DHS memo, it was withdrawn by the agency that put it forward, followed by public apologies from government officials. Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (R-MO) even asked that Missouri Public Safety Director John Britt be placed on administrative leave. What is disquieting, however, is that in both cases, two governments—the state of Missouri and the federal government—unleashed police nationwide to go after "rightwing extremists" with an overly broad mandate to view about half of the population as possible "suspects." What if members of law enforcement had not leaked and made available to the people of Missouri the February "threat" assessment? What if great scrutiny had not been given to the DHS memo when it surfaced in April? How, then, would law enforcement be treating participants in the town hall meetings of August? Probably the same way Congressman Brian Baird wants to. And Nancy Pelosi. And Barack Obama. Like Timothy McVeigh. Like enemies of the state. Like anything but the patriotic Americans they actually are. Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor. http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1465 Health Care "Compromise" A Poison Pill For Small BusinessBy Howard Rich Much ado has been made of the tenuous "compromise" between President Barack Obama and "Blue Dog" Democrats in Washington on the issue of government-run health care. Sadly, the reality is that the latest version of "Obamacare" is still a poison pill for America's small businesses and the millions of workers they employ. Most small businesses spend between 60 and 80 cents of every dollar they earn on payroll, which is precisely where Obama's plan would hit them. Not content with simply bleeding "the rich" to pay for the massive up-front costs of his $1.5 trillion socialized medicine proposal, Obama also wants to impose a massive new tax increase on American small businesses – one that will directly impede their ability to create jobs and stimulate economic activity. In other words, Obama wants to choke off America's number one job-creating engine in the depths of a recession that has already cost millions of jobs – all so he can create a government health care monopoly that will not only increase costs but also reduce the quality of care. That's a recipe for disaster, not real reform, and yet Obama continues to use rhetoric to mask his true intent. For example, in proclaiming a "National Small Business Week" three months ago, Obama touted small businesses as "the lifeblood of cities and towns across the country." "(Small businesses) help enhance the lives of our citizens by improving our quality of life and creating personal wealth," Obama said. "Small businesses will lead the way to prosperity, particularly in today's challenging economic environment." Obama further claimed that he supported "economic policies that encourage enterprise" and "tax policies that promote investment in small businesses." Unfortunately, Obama's rhetoric of support for small businesses has been accompanied by policies that threaten to put them "out" of business. For example, while state and local government bureaucracies have been bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, small businesses remain overtaxed and frozen out of credit markets. So much for "stimulating Main Street." With his socialized medicine proposal, however, Obama is attempting to erect the most sizable roadblock yet in the path to small business prosperity in America. In addition to imposing a new surtax on the "wealthiest Americans" – including the sixty percent who report income from small businesses or partnerships – Obama's plan would also force a new tax hike directly on the backs of small businesses with annual payrolls of $500,000 or more. According to data released by the U.S. Small Business Administration, the small businesses that would be affected by the latest "Obamacare compromise" employ 70% of all small business employees in America – or 42.3 million workers. Even worse, the new small business tax rises dramatically – and quickly – the more a company expands its payroll. In fact, small businesses with payrolls of $750,000 or higher would have to pay 8% of that total cost to the government. This would create a direct disincentive to economic growth and job creation. After all, why would a small business add employees (i.e. additional payroll expenses) if it meant incurring a higher tax rate? At the same time small businesses are absorbing this new tax, they would be sending a steady stream of new "customers" to the government-run plan, which would force nearly 84 million Americans out of their current health coverage, according to a new study by the Lewin Group. Simply put, Obama's plan would force small businesses to pay for in a way that would directly impede their ability to create jobs and stimulate economic activity. In addition to going against everything this nation was founded on, that's something America's small businesses simply cannot afford. Howie Rich is the Chairman of Americans for Limited Government. http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1464 Obama Up, Economy DownBy Steven Cohen The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal have a common ownership and share a nearly identical conservative philosophy, but the similarities stop there. The Journal has, over time, expanded beyond its financial news coverage franchise into more general interest reporting, while the Post has consistently adhered to a rather, shall we say, energetic style of conveying every conceivable kind of story. But last weekend both papers simultaneously came to the same conclusion observed in these columns weeks ago: the stock market moves inversely to Barack Obama's approval ratings. Post columnist Terry Keenan placed this phenomenon in a broader context, noting that "[h]istory shows that when the approval rating for a US president dips below the magical 50 percent mark, it is also typically the time to buy." Her conclusion: "Let the Obama rally begin!" The Journal editorial writers cited the president's current healthcare difficulties to explain the approval rating/market direction relationship. "Political uncertainty also continues to hang over risk-takers," the Journal observed "and on that point it has been fascinating to see the latest Wall Street rally coincide with the political troubles of ObamaCare. If it collapses, we might see Dow 10,000." Even daily stock trading vividly reflects this same pattern. The sharp, cliff-like lines on an intraday chart often coincide with the ubiquitous Obama pronouncements and press conferences. Most interesting is actually watching one of these events in real-time, with one eye on the television and the other on the tape. The averages sink with practically each utterance, their descent arrested only when the president mercifully finishes up. As the newspapers observed, the opposite occurs as the result of each new poll is revealed. Whether it's Gallup, Pew Research, Quinnipiac, WSJ/NBC, New York Times/CBS or any other major pollster, whether the subject is stimulus packages, healthcare, industry nationalization, or Obama's performance in general, as the president's numbers slip, the markets forge ahead, even in the absence of economic data that would suggest even the early stages of a robust, durable recovery. With Obama's overall approval rating hovering around 50%, the stock market could be on the cusp of its next leg up. Team Obama reportedly paid plenty of attention to poll results and focus groups in tailoring its message during the campaign (pledges such as 'you can keep your own health coverage if you like it' and 'your taxes won't go up one dime if you earn less than $250,000.' Remember those?). Now, the administration and its congressional minions appear to be in a deep state of denial about the most recent polls or, alternatively, respond by challenging the legitimacy of their results. How else to explain congressional Democrats digging in and grinding ahead with their thousand-plus pages of healthcare "reform" in the face of a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office report that demolishes every assumption on which the plan is based? How else to explain the administration's continuing effort to limit debate and ram through a bill despite numerous polls indicating that the vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their present coverage and believe that taxes will increase and services decline as a result of the government's meddling? These are the politics of hubris, out of which flow plans and policies fashioned by arrogant "leaders" who know better than clueless poll respondents. With respect to healthcare, Obama and his Democratic cohorts know what's good for you, so you'd better open your mouth, hold your nose, and swallow this castor oil of an agenda. Like Leona Helmsley's take on taxes, poll results, independent opinion, and honest objections to the direction in which the country is sinking—those are for the little people. Last November voters ushered in the "change" they were promised during the campaign. Having now seen the specifics of an agenda rolled out over the last six months, Americans are perhaps beginning to understand some of the changes that weren't so obvious as they joyously cast their votes for a candidate largely celebrated by the media as the man who would rescue us from the state of ruin we had arrived at under the evil Bush. These changes include spending plans and projected deficits in numbers that are impossible to even imagine; the creation of a European-style nanny-state with myriad new entitlements paid for by the "rich," thereby fulfilling Obama's famous "spread the wealth" campaign promise; a Democratic juggernaut to bulldoze through plans to radically alter the relationship between patient and doctor; an industrial nationalization policy that turns taxpayers into involuntary owners of broken car companies and insolvent banks; rewarding the very same unions responsible in part for wrecking some of these nationalized basket cases with big ownership stakes while trampling on creditor property rights; the conversion of our economic system into a statist economy having far more in common with socialism than with capitalism; and perhaps the biggest change of all, a president who travels the globe offering apologies for his country's disrespectful and insensitive behavior, while embracing tyrants and bowing to white-robed kings. This is but a partial list; Americans wanted change and they are certainly getting it. The recent polls, then, are suggesting clearly that Americans are rapidly souring on some of these changes, just as the stock market delivers a no-confidence vote on the administration's plans for a Brave New World. And there is another important poll looming ahead: the 2010 elections. Perhaps the respondents to that poll will deliver a message that the administration and its condescending Congressional enablers will find impossible to ignore. Steven Cohen is an ALG News contributing writer. http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1463
ALG Editor's Note: In the following featured commentary, Editorial Page Editor Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner highlights Americans for Limited Government's call for Department of Homeland Security Secretary to resign.
|
