Archive for August 10th, 2009

Let the Little Children Come to Me

Monday, August 10th, 2009

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Luke 18:15-17 (New International Version)

See Mr. Westbrook’s Bible Story Murals here.
Bible Story Murals
If your church is looking for a unique way to bring the Word of God to it’s children and young people, take a look at Doug Westbrook’s Bible Story Murals. Each wall sized mural is based on the hand painted originals Mr. Westbrook created at Central Baptist Church in Houston, Texas and represents a different well known Bible story.
They are available on durable vinyl wallpaper for easy installation.

“The Blues – Disappointment in the Era of Hope and Change” by Victor Davis Hanson

Monday, August 10th, 2009

The article has a lot of great information in it, but I think this statement sums it up quite nicely.

Obamian Democrats are uneasy and daily watching the polls for that key moment when Obama’s polls hit 49%, at which point they will begin to bail, and Obama (“This is not about me”/”You’re going to destroy my presidency”), for the first time in his life, discovers that his accustomed charm has now worn off and he is left to draw on two-years worth of senate experience.

Read the complete article here.

Ranking Senate Democrat ‘Open’ to Health Care Bill With No Public Option

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Some Democrats are starting to get scared of the public’s reaction to the health care “reform” legislation and are trying to find a way out. The analogy of “rats deserting the sinking ship” just floated across my mind…

The No. 2 Senate Democrat said Sunday that he’s “open” to health care reform that doesn’t include a government-run “public option,” the latest indication that the Democrats’ package could be scaled back as Senate negotiators try to hammer out a bipartisan compromise and constituents flood town halls to express discontent with the current legislation.

The so-called public option is a hot topic of debate at town hall meetings across the country. Supporters say it’s needed to keep private insurance companies in check and extend affordable coverage to all. Critics warn that the government should not have so much control over health care and that a public option could eventually eliminate private insurance.

The Senate Finance Committee, the last of five committees to consider health care legislation, is trying to hammer out a bipartisan compromise by mid-September — such a compromise might leave the public option behind.

Asked whether Democrats could support such a bill, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said he’s personally willing to consider it.

“It doesn’t have to be a perfect bill,” the Illinois Democrat said. “I support a public option, but, yes, I am open.”

He said that assuming the Senate passes a bill, there will be another opportunity to revise it in the conference committee, where the House and Senate would try to smooth out the differences between their bills.

“So we’ll see how this ends, but I don’t want the process to be filibustered to failure, which unfortunately, many senators are trying to do. I want to make sure that we do something positive for the American people,” Durbin said.

Analysts say that controversial elements like the public option may well be in jeopardy as members of the public voice their discontent with that and other issues at town hall meetings, and the timeline for negotiations grows longer.

Stripping the public option, though, could create problems on the other side of the aisle. It’s unclear whether more liberal Democrats would support a bill that doesn’t contain it.

Top Democrats like Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., have said the public option is vital.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told “FOX News Sunday” that the health care plan as advanced by the Democrats is in “serious trouble.”

“Americans are very skeptical about putting the government in charge of all of American health care. They’re also skeptical as to whether it will be paid for,” he said. “And even if they become convinced that it’s paid for, then you have to look at how it’s being paid for.”

But McConnell said that even if negotiators put forward a system of nonprofit cooperatives instead of a public plan — something President Obama reportedly is open to — he still wouldn’t support it.

“It sounds a lot like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to me,” McConnell said. “No, that’s not acceptable.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said a “co-op” could be a “government takeover” by another name, adding that he’d have to see the details.

He said he wants to at least see the public option “off the table” before moving forward.

McConnell, though, rejected charges that Republican leaders don’t want any deal and are only interested in stonewalling.

“We’d like to make a deal, but we’d like to make the right kind of deal. I mean, this is not about embarrassing anybody politically. This is about getting it right,” he said.

Durbin suggested he wouldn’t hold out too long for Republicans to come to the table.

“If it reaches the point where we cannot reach a bipartisan agreement, I don’t want to see health care reform fail. We only get a chance once in a political lifetime to do something,” he said.

Durbin and Cornyn spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Original Link.

“Our Angry Aristocracy” by Victor Davis Hanson

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Scolding Americans for our various sins is proving popular among an elite group of self-appointed moralists.

Take well-meaning environmentalists who warn us that our plush lifestyles heat up and pollute the planet. To listen to former Vice President Al Gore or New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, we must immediately curtail our carbon emissions — or face planetary destruction.
Yet these influential prophets of doom do not have lives remotely similar to the lesser folk they lecture to. From time to time, Al Gore hops on a private jet — and purchases “carbon offsets” penances for the privilege. His mansion not long ago consumed more energy in a month than the average American home does in a year. Friedman lives on a sprawling estate reminiscent of the grandees of the 18th-century English countryside.

The rest of us would find these environmental scolds more convincing if they chose to live modestly in average tract homes. That way they could limit their energy consumption, and provide living proof to us of how smaller is better for an endangered planet earth.

In the old days, critics for the most part of what we called the “system” were at least blue-collar workers, underpaid teachers or grassroots politicians whose rather modest lives matched their angry populist rhetoric. Now the most vehement critics of America’s purported sins are among the upper classes. And their parlor game has confused Americans about why they are being called polluters, racists and exploiters by those who have fared the best in America.

Do the wealthy and the powerful lecture us about our wrongs because they know their own insider status ensures that they are exempt from the harsh medicine they advocate for others? Millionaire Gore is not much affected by higher taxes for his cap-and-trade crusade.

Or does the hypocrisy grow out of a sort of class snobbery? Do elites hector the crass middle class because it lacks their own taste, rare insight and privileged style? Judging from the police report, Gates seemed flabbergasted that the white Cambridge cop did not know who he was “messing” with.

Or is the new hypocrisy an eerie sort of psychological compensation at work? Perhaps the more Al Gore rails about carbon emissions, the more he can without guilt enjoy what emits them. The more professor Gates can cite racism, the more he himself is paid to spot it. And the more a Tom Daschle wants to tax and spend for health care, the less badly he feels about his own chauffer and tax avoidance?

Here’s a little advice for all of America’s aristocratic critics: a little less hypocrisy, a little more appreciation of your good lives — and then maybe the rest of us will listen to you a little more.

Read the complete article here.

California Could Get Nine Extra House Seats Because Illegal Aliens Will be Counted in 2010

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Next year’s census will determine the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. To accomplish these vital constitutional purposes, the enumeration should count only citizens and persons who are legal, permanent residents. But it won’t.

Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country—including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of “loser” states should be outraged. Yet few are even aware of what’s going on.

In 1790, the first Census Act provided that the enumeration of that year would count “inhabitants” and “distinguish” various subgroups by age, sex, status as free persons, etc. Inhabitant was a term with a well-defined meaning that encompassed, as the Oxford English Dictionary expressed it, one who “is a bona fide member of a State, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer.”

Thus early census questionnaires generally asked a question that got at the issue of citizenship or permanent resident status, e.g., “what state or foreign country were you born in?” or whether an individual who said he was foreign-born was naturalized. Over the years, however, Congress and the Census Bureau have added inquiries that have little or nothing to do with census’s constitutional purpose.

By 1980 there were two census forms. The shorter form went to every person physically present in the country and was used to establish congressional apportionment. It had no question pertaining to an individual’s citizenship or legal status as a resident. The longer form gathered various kinds of socioeconomic information including citizenship status, but it went only to a sample of U.S. households. That pattern was repeated for the 1990 and 2000 censuses.

The 2010 census will use only the short form. The long form has been replaced by the Census Bureau’s ongoing American Community Survey. Dr. Elizabeth Grieco, chief of the Census Bureau’s Immigration Statistics Staff, told us in a recent interview that the 2010 census short form does not ask about citizenship because “Congress has not asked us to do that.”

Because the census (since at least 1980) has not distinguished citizens and permanent, legal residents from individuals here illegally, the basis for apportionment of House seats has been skewed. According to the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey data (2007), states with a significant net gain in population by inclusion of noncitizens include Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Texas. (There are tiny net gains for Hawaii and Massachusetts.)

This makes a real difference. Here’s why:

According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat). Using a similar projection, Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included. With only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members.

Of course, other states lose out when noncitizens are counted for reapportionment. According to projections of the 2010 Census by Election Data Services, states certain to lose one seat in the 2010 reapportionment are Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania; states likely (though not certain) to lose a seat are Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio could lose a second seat. But under a proper census enumeration that excluded illegal residents, some of the states projected to lose a representative—including our own state of Louisiana—would not do so.

The census has drifted far from its constitutional roots, and the 2010 enumeration will result in a malapportionment of Congress.

In the 1964 case of Wesberry v. Sanders, the Supreme Court said, “The House of Representatives, the [Constitutional] Convention agreed, was to represent the people as individuals and on a basis of complete equality for each voter.” It ruled that Georgia had violated the equal-vote principle because House districts within the state did not contain roughly the same number of voting citizens. Justice Hugo Black wrote in his majority opinion that “one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” The same principle is being violated now on a national basis because of our faulty census.

The Census Bureau can of course collect whatever data Congress authorizes. But Congress must not permit the bureau to unconstitutionally redefine who are “We the People of the United States.”

Original Link.

Opposition Emerges to Multimillion-Dollar Plan to Buy Planes for Government Officials

Monday, August 10th, 2009

This current government is so out of touch ith mainstream America. It’s pathetic!!

WASHINGTON — Bipartisan opposition is emerging in the Senate to a plan by House lawmakers to spend $550 million for additional passenger jets for senior government officials.

The resistance to buying eight Gulfstream and Boeing planes comes as members of both chambers of Congress embark on the busiest month of the year for official overseas travel. The plan to upgrade the fleet of government jets, which was included in a broader defense-funding bill, has also sparked criticism from the Pentagon, which has said it doesn’t need half of the new jets.

Two Missouri senators, Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Christopher Bond, said they would oppose funding for the jets when the legislation is taken up by the Senate in September.

“The whole thing kind of makes me sick to my stomach,” said Mrs. McCaskill in an interview Sunday. “It is evidence that some of the cynicism about Washington is well placed — that people get out of touch and they spend money likes it’s Monopoly money.”

Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) says the planned purchase “is a classic example of Congress being out of touch with the realities of deficit spending.”

The Obama administration had sought $220 million to buy four passenger jets, including two that are currently being leased by the Air Force, to replace a fleet of older planes. Before leaving town for the August break, House lawmakers doubled the aircraft order to eight, at a total cost of $550 million.

Original Link.

White House Move to Collect ‘Fishy’ Info May Be Illegal

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Obama Snitch Mail
Obama Snitch Mail

As we stated last week, we have provided a convenient link, in our sidebar, to assist people in turning in this blog as “fishy”.

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see “fishy” information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

“The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday.

“There’s also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can’t try to rewrite history by pretending it didn’t receive anything,” he said.

“If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute.”

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.

The White House has been under fire since it posted a blog on Tuesday that asked supporters to e-mail any “fishy” information seen on the Web or received electronically to

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there,” the blog said, adding that “since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help.”

The blog was posted partly in response to a video posted on the Web that claimed to show Obama explaining how his health care reform plans eventually will eliminate private insurance.

The video, featured on the Drudge Report, strung together selected Obama statements that the White House said were taken out of context.

The White House said it wanted to be made aware of “fishy” comments about its health care plan because it wants to set the record straight. But critics called White House move an Orwellian tactic designed to control the health care debate.

“This is a very troubling attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He called on Obama to repudiate his blog.

“This move is an attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan,” Sekulow said. “And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed ‘speech police.’ This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care.”

Sekulow said he imagines that opponents of mandatory abortion coverage are engaging in what the White House considers “fishy” speech and should be reported.

“What the White House is touting is absurd,” he said.

But Napolitano said the White House probably cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, unless someone was harmed by what the government did with the records. But that’s unlikely, he said, because the person would probably be unaware of the harm.

“That’s a silent violation of your right to privacy,” he said.

Original Link.

Drug Offenders To Get Federal Student Aid Under New Bill

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Leave it to the Democrats to take away all personal accountability. It’s not like the original criterion was all that hard; students wouldn’t get their funds until they completed a rehabilitation program and passed two unannounced drug tests. Students convicted of dealing drugs would continue to be prohibited from receiving financial aid at all.
Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Not to the liberal Democrats.

College students convicted of drug possession may soon get access to federal student loans due to a little-noticed provision in the 181-page Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009.

The bill, which makes major revisions to the student loan system, was introduced by California congressman George Miller, a Democrat. It is expected to pass in the House of Representatives.

The provision would reverse a 1998 amendment that made students convicted of drug-possession ineligible to receive federal funding unless they completed a rehabilitation program and passed two unannounced drug tests. Students convicted of dealing drugs would continue to be prohibited from receiving financial aid.

Advocates on both sides of the issue say it is an important one.

“This bill is an important step in restoring education to our country’s youth,” said Adam Wolf, staff attorney for the ACLU, which has unsuccessfully fought the current restriction for several years in the courts.

Kris Krane, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said of the current law: “It’s an unfair penalty, it’s double jeopardy, and it impacts students of color and low income students predominantly. It actually creates more drug abuse, because we know that the best way to prevent drug abuse later on in life is to get a college degree. That opens opportunities for economic advancement later on in life.”

But law enforcement groups say the current law is supposed to make students think twice before using drugs.

“[Changing this policy] would remove one more deterrent for people breaking the law. It’s not good policy and is something that we would oppose,” Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, told

Others say tax dollars should not be spent to help people who break the law go to college.

“If they want to continue to use drugs they ought to pay for college themselves. Or get off the drugs — and stay off the drugs — as a condition for continuing to be supported by the taxpayers,” said Dr. Barrett Duke of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“It isn’t as though these students can’t get federal funding back. They have all kinds of opportunities to [get it back] by entering a treatment program.”

Over 200,000 students have been denied financial aid because of drug infractions over the last 10 years, according to data from the Department of Justice. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that giving aid to students convicted of drug possession would cost an extra $24 million over the next 10 years.

One of those students who lost her financial aid was Kandice Hawes, who was a freshman at California State University, Fullerton, when she was convicted of marijuana possession in Nevada.

“I was in Las Vegas,” she said, “and I had a little more than an ounce [of marijuana], which was a felony at that time…. So I lost my aid.

“I had to take on a full-time job to stay in school, and ever since I’ve been trying to make it up by taking classes after work. I can’t go to school full-time any more,” she said.

Hawes said she did not enter a treatment program because of the prohibitive cost — thousands of dollars, she said.

After her arrest, she said, she founded a chapter of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group. She is currently taking night classes to get a political science degree.

“[Changing this law] would be the best thing that could happen,” she said. “Murderers and rapists are still able to get school funds, so people [convicted on] possession of marijuana charges definitely shouldn’t get the money taken away.”

Pasco agreed that the current law prohibits only drug users from receiving aid — there are no legal prohibitions for other felons, including murderers and rapists — but he said that he would prefer to see the law made even stricter.

“If they’re looking for consistency, then no lawbreakers should get federal aid. We love consistency, but consistency means that if you break the law there are consequences for your actions,” he said.

Duke, of the Southern Baptist Convention, said he disagreed with Krane’s argument that putting students though college would help get them off of drugs.

“I think eventually most people outgrow their youthful enthusiasm for drugs, but I’m not convinced college is the thing that causes them to outgrow that.”

Original Link.

Obama Lies About Jobless Numbers – Uses “Fuzzy” Data

Monday, August 10th, 2009

We have reached the point were we expect no less from this yahoo in the White House.

The White House, reacting to the latest jobless report showing the unemployment rate fell unexpectedly to 9.4 percent in July, predicted that despite the good news the rate would still hit 10 percent before year’s end.

But in effect it already has.

The actual percentage of Americans who remain unemployed — including those who have stopped looking for work — is considerably higher than 9.4 percent and surpassed 10 percent months ago. By one measure, the unemployment rate is really 10.7 percent.

When you count those forced to settle for part-time work, the number is higher still. The 9.4 percent figure represents a very specific measurement of unemployed people that doesn’t factor in everybody.

The Labor Department report Friday was good news nevertheless. It showed the jobless rate fell one tenth of a point, the first decline in 15 months.

President Obama said Friday his administration has “rescued our economy from collapse.” He said much more needs to be done and that he won’t rest until “every American that is looking for a job can find one.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday that while there’s still plenty of work to do the report is “more evidence that we have pulled back from the edge” of a depression.

Employers throttled back on layoffs in July, cutting just 247,000 jobs, the fewest in a year. It was a better-than-expected showing that offered a strong signal that the recession is finally ending.

But if laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included the unemployment rate would have been 16.3 percent in July. That’s down from 16.5 percent in June, which was the highest on records dating to 1994 — but still higher than a few months ago.

Nailing down the actual percentage of unemployed Americans is exceedingly tricky. The Labor Department uses a survey method, like a poll, to gauge unemployment — not a Census-style head count. The survey tries to determine the number of unemployed as a percentage of the labor force, but the labor force is only defined as those who are looking for work.

So many who are technically out of work are not counted in the unemployment rate. One of the reasons the rate went down in July was because hundreds of thousands of people left the labor force. All told, there were 14.5 million out of work in July.

Those who are not working and not looking for work, but indicate they are available for a job and have looked in the recent past, are considered “marginally attached workers.” Those people are not counted as part of the labor force in the Labor Department’s numbers. Also, “discouraged workers,” or those who have given up looking for work because of job-market related reasons, are not counted. Naturally, the homeless population would also not be counted by and large because many homeless do not have phones and would not be contacted as part of the survey.

If part-time workers are excluded, but discouraged workers are included, July’s unemployment rate was 9.8 percent.

If that number includes all marginally attached workers, the percentage for July was 10.7 percent. That number topped 10 percent back in April.

But Cato Institute fellow Alan Reynolds noted that all of those alternate unemployment rate figures are down from the month before and reflect a positive trend.

“You don’t have to look far in this report to see fairly optimistic signs,” he said. “There’s a lot of good news in this report.”

Even if the unemployment rate hits 10 percent as Obama predicts, Reynolds said, the increase could still reflect positive growth — since it could mean more people are entering the workforce and looking for jobs. Such a development would increase the size of the labor force as defined by the Labor Department, temporarily causing the unemployment rate to rise.

The new snapshot released by the Labor Department on Friday also offered other encouraging news: workers’ hours nudged up after sinking to a record low in June, and paychecks grew after having fallen or flat lined in some cases.

To be sure, the report still indicates that the jobs market is on shaky ground. But the new figures were better than many analysts were expecting and offered welcomed improvements to a part of the economy that has been clobbered by the recession.

Original Link.

Nancy and the Astroturfers

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Please take some time and look at this photo essay concerning a visit by Nancy Pelosi to a clinic in Denver, to hype her health care “reforms”, and the various protest that accompanied that visit.
I want you to notice several things here:
1) By their own admission, the people who counter-protested, were organized and transported to the event.
2) They were rude (as is always the case with Democrat/liberal protesters and counter-protesters) and even mean. One example was using a bullhorn within a couple of feet of protesters and when asked to back up a bit or turn it down some, moved even closer.
The author of the photo essay uses the term “astrozoid” to denote the Obama supports who were counter-protesting the grassroots anti-health care reform folks.

This was the scene when I arrived at Stout Street Clinic in downtown Denver. Nancy Pelosi is to pay a visit to the clinic within the hour. About 200 people opposed to Obama’s healthcare agenda braved the mile high Denver sun and high temperatures to show their opposition. Their signs indicate that they are well aware that they have been vilified and targeted in an Oval Office astroturfing campaign designed to discredit their opposition.

First let’s look at the messages and faces of these hardy dissenters. Take a close look so you can compare them to the community organizers who will soon enter the scene and harass them. These citizens have been described by the Democratic National Committee in an ad as “angry mobs organized by desperate Republicans and their well funded allies.”

The Democrat party that funneled billions in the stimulus package to ACORN community organizers to organize, protest and agitate, this same party is now livid that private citizens attend townhall meetings.

These protesters told me that they pay their own way and question what the government is attempting to do to their health care.

“When asked by a reporter whether the protests at various town-hall meetings represented legitimate grassroots opposition or were manufactured “AstroTurf” stunts, Nancy Pelosi replied, ‘I think they’re AstroTurf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.’”
-Jonah Goldberg

“Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer insists the protests have to be fake because the protesters are too “well-dressed.” Likewise, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says this is all “manufactured anger” because the protesters — he calls them the “Brooks Brothers Brigade” — are too tastefully appointed to be authentic protesters. Apparently only filthy hippies can petition government.”
-Jonah Goldberg

“The reason for the panic is simple. Obama and the Democrats feel entitled to have their way on health care. This sense of entitlement is understandable. They won the election and control everything.

The problem is that Americans don’t like what they’ve heard about the plan, and Obama is incapable of selling, or unwilling to sell, it on the merits (perhaps because he knows the plan will lead to the single-payer system he has long sought but now denies wanting). That’s why Obama spends most of his time either attacking critics or denouncing the status quo.”
–J. Goldberg

“Simply put: This administration believes it knows best. It feels it is the only legitimate beneficiary of “people power.” It thinks it has a monopoly on democratic organizing. And it is terrified that it will be hobbled if it loses this fight.

So, it just stands to reason that anyone who stands in the way must be a fraud, a puppet, a goon — or even a Nazi.”
–J Goldberg

After I was on the scene for about 15 minutes I got a call from one of my location scouts. “Hey, you gotta come down by the alley here. A bunch of Obama people just showed up.”

I walked over to the far corner of the clinic and sure enough, freshly minted Obama supporters had arrived on the scene.

These people were organized by the ArapaHope Community Team (A.C.T.)

An email circulated the day before by the local Democrat Party urged activists to come out to this event, and another one later that same day, claimed that “rich special interests” would be bussing “Teabaggers” there. Teabaggers is an obscure homocentric term that has been made a household word by the Democrat party. Tea Party participants are people who identify with that patriotic tax revolt of 1773. The Democrats’ reference to them as “Teabaggers” is a horribly crude example of how the left coarsens our public discourse.

“I hope that our work together on the Obama campaign was only the beginning. I want to say that we will continue to be a force to be reckoned with – and carve a niche within the politics of our community to make way for our collective voices to be heard.”
– Donna Galassi of A.C.T. (community organizer)

Typically, the media fawned over the left wing Turffers. Their numbers are now reaching their peak, which I estimate at 20 % of the total crowd. For 200 tea partiers, there were about 40 Democrat party astroturfese.

Here is an organizer from Organizing for America, which is the successor organization to Obama for America, which was Obama’s campaign organization. The organizer is demonstrating the use of a bullhorn to a man who appears totally unfamiliar with its use. For a grassroots campaign, this sure is organized!

I thought this a very interesting scene. Here’s a real live “community organizer” in action. He’s organizing this guy and he’s going to send him out to shout down people who are dissenting from the Democrat Party line. The fellow seemed reluctant and as it turns out after a few minutes the organizer retrieved his bullhorn and started using it himself.

This is the first time in my life that I can recall a government in North America organizing protests of one group of citizens against another. This is standard operating procedure in countries with left-wing governments.

This clinic is adjacent to Denver’s day laborer pickup street, Park Avenue. Being fluent in Spanish, El Marco asked these guys “¿hablan ingles?” “casi nada” was the reply from our amigo on the left. I asked him if he could tell me what the signs said. “¿Quien sabe?” (who knows?) was all he said to me, with a big grin. I’m kicking myself for not asking them how much they were getting paid to support the grassroots.

The irony of their lack of comprehension of the signs they were holding was heightened by the fact that they were the most elaborate and detailed signs of either group.

Here comes our community organizer with his bullhorn. For the next half hour or more, he will chant “FREE HEALTH CARE NOW”, “YES WE CAN” etc. with his horn directed at the faces of the health care dissenters.

During the election, on September 17, 2008, at a campaign stop in Nevada, Obama said “I want you to argue with them (neighbors) and get in their face”.

What we see here is “astroturfing” or manufactured fake grassroots. The dissenters are genuinely concerned and informed about their health care but they maintain their civility. The DNC knows their anger is real and they are desperately trying to deligitimize dissent by claiming it’s paid for “by insurance corporations” yet they don’t name a single one or provide evidence.

It’s David Axelrod, Obama’s senior advisor, who is famous for inventing AstroTurfing.

This woman worked in tandem with the other organizer and blasted the same people from behind. These bullhorns are extremely powerful. I saw demonstrators repeatedly ask them to point their bullhorns away. This woman in particular responded by moving the bullhorn closer to a woman who complained of ear pain.

Obama, on March 18, said “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I’m angry. What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way. “

At that time, he wanted people protesting in the front yards of AIG executives. Now the DNC has ordered this harassment of grassroots dissenters against their statist goals. While in other parts of the country, this Democrat Party activity has descended into violence, what we have seen so far here today is only annoying and childish behavior.

The man in the background is wearing a Laborers Union Denver shirt. He appeared to be quite active.

Take note of the lady on the right. She is holding a sign that reads “Pants on Fire” with Pelosi’s image. The image is repeated three times on her sign. There are no other words. I left the event early but the photo below, from the Denver Post, shows what I missed. The astrozoid on the left below, with the HOPE T-shirt, decided that she didn’t like the Nancy Pants on Fire sign. Not a problem. Just grab it.

The woman in black struggles to maintain her free speech while calling for help from police nearby.

The Denver Post caption described it like this:

“A supporter of health care reform, left, who did not want to give her name, pushes forward to rip a sign out of Kris McLay’s hands outside the Stout Street Clinic visited by Nancy Pelosi.” (THE DENVER POST | RJ SANGOSTI)

This is Laura Avant. She has a degree in social working science, is a substitute teacher, and has been unemployed for seven years. She is taking names for a petition and when I asked her how she found out about the event she said “My organizer called me.” I said “You’re kidding.” She said, “No, look: he’s right there -pointing to the guy with the bullhorn – he’s from Organizing for America.”

At this point, a number of the astroturfers departed, including Laura. She told me that transportation was waiting to take them to Nancy Pelosi’s next event at Highlands Ranch.

Thanks for visiting! Never Give In and Never Forget. El Marco

See all of the photos at his website here.