The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites


By Randall Hoven

September 20, 2010

George Orwell said, “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” What follows is my beginning of a list of ideas that some very intelligent people seem to believe.

The air should be taxed. More precisely, what every animal on earth exhales and what every plant on earth inhales can and should be taxed.

President Bush was bad for the economy because he spent too much. President Obama is helping the economy by spending a lot.

A jury is better informed if evidence is withheld from it.

The Boy Scouts are wrong for having policies that inhibit pedophilia. The Catholic Church was wrong for not having policies that inhibit pedophilia.

An economy in which government accounts for about 40% of economic activity, which owns a similar percentage of all land, and which enforces a stack of regulations the size of 64 Bibles (or 30 New Deals) is considered a radical laissez-faire free market.

Grabbing a person by his shirt and pulling him toward you is an “enhanced interrogation technique” not in the Army Field Manual. It is therefore “tantamount to torture” and out of bounds for any government agency or contractor to use when asking a terrorist what his plans are. Simply dropping a bomb on him, though, with neither trial nor tribunal, and killing him and anyone near him, including his wife, children, family and friends, is OK.


The federal government can force a state to recognize gay marriages because of the 14th Amendment. The federal government cannot force a state to not recognize gay marriages because of the 10th Amendment.

Toilet tank capacity is interstate commerce. Public use of private property includes handing it over to another private owner. Large seasonal puddles connected to no other bodies of water are “navigable waters” as far as the government and its regulators are concerned.

The phrase “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law” means (a) it is OK to deprive property owners of their property and (b) it is not OK for a state to outlaw depriving life to any baby whose head has not left the birth canal.

The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” means it’s OK to outlaw owning or carrying handguns.

The clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means a public school must prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer at all school events, including football games. But it is OK for government to subsidize “art” such as a crucifix in a pitcher of urine.

The clause that says Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech” does not include workplace speech that might be considered racially or sexually offensive, commercial speech not approved by a federal regulatory agency, or political speech too close to an election.

A guy who made a $34,000 mistake on his own taxes is the best choice to be in charge of the IRS and the entire federal treasury. The guy with thirteen House ethics charges against him, including misusing federal resources and not paying taxes on his villa in the Dominican Republic, should be in charge of writing the country’s tax laws. The guy who told us in 2005 that a housing bubble was nonsense and Fannie Mae was in fine shape should be writing in 2010 the regulations to overhaul all finance conducted in this country.

One way to a colorblind society is to ask for “race” on every official form. Another way is to add points for certain races on civil service exams and to use different cutoffs for different races on things like ACT, SAT, and LSAT scores when deciding whom to accept in educational institutions.

The way to increase jobs is to raise taxes on those who provide them and give money to those who don’t have them.

More here……..


Don’t forget to add – Sarah Pallin had too little experience to be Vice-President, but Barack Obama, who had much less experience had more than enough to be President.

Conservative math – add a group of numbers together to get the answer. Liberal math – start with the number you want to end up with and announce that it is the correct answer as there must be some numbers somewhere that add up to that number.







Do the Democrats (Especially Progressives) Need Reading lessons?


Ben Shapiro writes this opinion piece that is SAD, but true.

May 19, 2010
By Ben Shapiro

Democrats: Learn to Read

The literacy rate in the United States is 99 percent. That means that only 1 percent of people in the United States above the age of 15 are incapable of reading and writing. Apparently, all of them are members of the Obama administration.
Attorney General Eric Holder admits that he has not read the Arizona immigration law, which requires law enforcement officers to check immigration status upon stopping people based on reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says she hasn’t read the law, either. You can also lump State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley into that group.
That did not stop any of them from opining at length on the Arizona law; Holder called the law “a slippery slope” leading to racial profiling, saying he based that opinion on “television, talking to people who are on the review panel.” Napolitano called the law “bad law enforcement law.” Crowley defended a U.S. diplomat who actually apologized to China for the immigration law—as though American states should apologize for enforcing their borders to a country that routinely excises and sells the internal organs of its political prisoners.
Democrats didn’t bother reading the massive Obamacare law, either, before passing it. The official actuary of the Obama administration didn’t even have time to do a cost analysis of the health care bill before the vote. In fact, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Americans “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
To be fair, the health care bill was almost 2,500 pages long and clocked in at almost 400,000 words. (By contrast, the Old Testament contains about 80,000 Hebrew words, which means the Democrats’ attempts to play God fail on both a practical and rhetorical level.) The Arizona law is 15 pages long and runs about 8,000 words. An ADHD-addled teenager could peruse it in an hour. It’s been approximately one month since Arizona passed the law, and the Democrats still haven’t read it.
Which means one of two things: either they prefer to remain ignorant so they don’t have to honestly appraise the merits of the bill or they can’t read. If it’s the former, they’re disingenuous liars. If it’s the latter, they’re ignorant boobs. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it’s the latter.
With that in mind, I now offer these boobs a linguistic Wonderbra. Because they obviously can’t read, I suggest that someone who can read—Sasha and Malia? — sit these Democrats down and read this to them out loud. Slowly.
Dear Democrats: Think of reading as a text-based thong-clad intern. Reading, like that thong-clad intern, can be fun, so long as you ensure that you stay on the page. Here are a few basic rules to help you achieve that purpose.
First, you must learn what words mean. The word “literally” means the plain, unvarnished truth. Yet you guys somehow use that word as though it means its precise opposite, “figuratively.” During the 2008 election campaign, Joe Biden said that Obama would be able to “literally, literally … change the direction of the world.” This is untrue. The only Democrat with the ability to literally change the direction of the world is Michael Moore, who can do so using his gravitational pull. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, one of Obama’s former best buddies, misused the word in classic fashion this week, claiming that “When Obama threw me under the bus, he threw me under the bus literally!” If only.
Second, once you know what words mean, take them literally when it comes to the law. This means that you should read laws as doing what they say they do, not what you wish they did.

Excerpted….Continue reading HERE.




My end notes: BOTH sides need to READ THE BILLS.

Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans heed the American call.

Message to incumbents:

The American people are tired of the same ‘ol incumbent Congressional members that just “pass the bill so we know what’s in it mentality”……

The same ‘ol incumbent Congressional members that live on the dole of lobbying groups like the big banks, the SEIU, the Apollo Alliance, the Center for American Progress (George Soros funded) groups that actually write legislation….isn’t that what the House of Representatives is SUPPOSED to do?

The same ‘ol incumbent Congressional members that are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES (Pelosi included); yet want Americans to believe they are looking out for the small business owners, are fixing the economy and “creating or saving” jobs.

To the same ‘ol incumbent Congressional members…..DO YOUR JOB or get a “Pink slip”.

GET RID OF “K” STREET and “J” STREET known as lobbyist lane.









Obama hugs Crist tighter, may abandon Kendrick Meek


Florida voters: Are you getting this “ploy” yet?

Now Independent Charlie Crist, the Obama hugger after having his calls to the White House refused recently, (all of a sudden) now the Florida Democratic Party is begging the White House to reconsider backing Crist.

Knowing their candidate Kendrick Meek is lagging behind in the polls, the  Democrats are starting to  back Crist knowing he will likely Caucus with the Democrats in the Senate.


Best friends forever!


From the Washington Examiner:

May 10, 2010

A group of Florida Democrats have been urging the White House to abandon their own Senate candidate, Rep. Kendrick Meek, in all but name. And they appear to have succeeded.

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Obama is seriously considering offering only half-hearted support to his party’s nominee, the only serious black candidate for Senate in the United States this year, so as to help Republican-turned-Independent candidate Gov. Charlie Crist win the seat.

The White House told the Democrats that the president is supporting his party’s likely nominee, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek. But the Democrats came away from the conversations thinking that the White House might be open to discussing the level of passion that it would put behind Mr. Meek’s candidacy, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Mr. Crist’s path to victory would become easier if the president refrained from singling him out for criticism or from making Mr. Meek’s election a top priority during the busy campaign season. The White House officials speaking with the Democrats included Mr. Obama’s political director, Patrick Gaspard.

Crist also appears to be speaking with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This should be taken as a sign of where he will caucus if he makes it to the U.S. Senate.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:


Whatever happened to backing your own party member?

The Democrats will stoop to any level  to try to retain its power in Congress.

If Crist had won the Senate seat as a Republican, he would have been a RINO anyway.



Is this the mantra of the Democrats in the mid-term elections? 

IF your Democratic candidate is losing in the polls; hug a RINO?



The telling sign was when I heard Crist vetoed the bill in the Florida State Legislature to basically rid Florida of tenured teachers.  Crist  was already swayed by the Unions.


Florida; when you go to the polls to select your candidate……choose wisely.





Rep. Cleaver changes his ‘I was spit on’ story. PLUS Alinsky Tactics of Progressives

Rick Moran writes this at American Thinker:

April 3, 2010
It’s too late to affect the narrative about the tea party protest a couple of weeks ago, but indicative of the rank dishonesty involved in the smear.

Weasel Zipper
links to the story:

The video is not clear as to whether or not the man spit in Cleaver’s face intentionally, or if it was a matter of “say it, don’t spray it.” Rep. Cleaver never commented on the incident, but it didn’t take long before many people claimed that he was spit upon.
In an interview on Tuesday with FOX 4 News, Rep. Cleaver would not directly answer the question of whether or not he was intentionally spit upon.

“I haven’t talked about this incident on TV or anywhere, and I’ve been approached to talk about it on every national TV show,” said Rep. Cleaver in an interview with FOX 4 News. “I never, I never reported anything, never a single thing in Washington, not one thing. People assume I went somewhere, never done press conference, never done an interview on it and I’m not going to do it.”

Never reported anything? WZ has his statement on the incident:

This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the others Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police.

We know now that no one was arrested, that the Capitol Police were unaware of any such incident, and that Cleaver is a liar.

It won’t change anything, of course, A year from now liberals will still be throwing up the “spitting” incident as a sign of the racist tea partiers. And Cleaver’s weasel words about denying it ever happened will be forgotten.


Another Democrats spewing vitriol:

And the vitriol is spread by commenters like this:


So WHO is spreading vitriol of hate, fear and racism?

In true Alinsky fashion:

Rules for Radicals:
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.


“‘The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems,’ and ‘organizations must be based on many issues.’ The organizer ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'”


“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat (workers and the poor) by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.”

p.10 (Rules for Radicals~~Saul Alinsky)


Using WATER as a Vote For Healthcare. Socialist Utopia California Style


Withholding water for farming areas of California to protect a smelt (feeder fish).

Unemployment rate of 20%…..40% in some farming districts of California to protect a feeder fish.

Holding hostage farmers for water for their crops.  Decrease in crops = increase in cost of food for Americans.

Socialist Utopia?  Or dictatorial control over livelihoods for farmers…..

Watch this video:

The most searing words were when Rep. Devin Nunez are:

“Holding the San Joaquin Valley hostage”

“This is coming to the rest of America if people don’t watch out”


To buy healthcare votes they give 25% of normal water flow.

Is any water being withheld from Nancy Pelosi’s vineyards?  I doubt it.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Government control of FOOD and WATER?



Obama To Progressives: This Is Just The Foundation


Obama is pleading to the Progressives to pass this Obamacrimes bill.

Obama To Progressives: This Is Just The Foundation

March 4, 2010

Obama argued to the group of progressive members that his health care reform bill should be looked at as the foundation of reform, that can be built on in the future. He asked them to help gather votes for the final health care battle and promised that as soon as the bill was signed into law, he’d continue to push to make it stronger. But in a matter of weeks, he stressed, he could sign into law legislation that would lead to 31 million new people being insured, including the woman who wrote him.

It has been surprising to some people that he is still fighting for health care reform, Obama told the group. “He said, and I think he’s absolutely right, that a lot of people, I think, are surprised at his persistence that in some ways this health care reform has been lifted from the near dead to becoming a reality in the next couple of weeks,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). “He said, quite specifically, that what we could say to people was that once the bill passes the president made a commitment to work to make improvements down the road.”

Attendees included Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) and Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-chairs; Schakowsky and Lucille Roybal-Allard (Calif.), the CPC’s Health Care Task Force co-chair; Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; Rep. Mike Honda (Calif.), chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; and Reps. Madeleine Bordallo (Guam), Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands), Danny Davis (Ill.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair.

Of those, only Kucinich voted no, but Christensen and Bordallo don’t have a vote on the House floor. None of the members, including Kucinich, indicated that they would vote any differently this time around. “I think [Kucinich] left the meeting leaving the impression with the president that he’s a no-go,” said Schakowsky.

But, said one attendee, Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders’s measure was similar but doesn’t kick in for several years.




Currently there is a bill in Congress sponsored by Alan Grayson (D-Fl).  Is this plan “B”? An Amendment to Title XVIIIof the Social Security Act to push single payer healthcare?




Title: To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an option for any citizen or permanent resident of the United States to buy into Medicare.
Sponsor: Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] (introduced 3/9/2010)      Cosponsors (80)
Latest Major Action: 3/9/2010 Referred to House committee.

Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.


Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 3/16/2010 Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 3/11/2010
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] – 3/11/2010 Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] – 3/16/2010
Rep Carson, Andre [IN-7] – 3/16/2010 Rep Castor, Kathy [FL-11] – 3/17/2010
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] – 3/16/2010 Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] – 3/16/2010
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] – 3/16/2010 Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] – 3/16/2010
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] – 3/16/2010 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 3/11/2010
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] – 3/11/2010 Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] – 3/11/2010
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] – 3/16/2010 Rep Delahunt, Bill [MA-10] – 3/17/2010
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] – 3/16/2010 Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] – 3/9/2010
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] – 3/11/2010 Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] – 3/16/2010
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] – 3/16/2010 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] – 3/9/2010
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] – 3/9/2010 Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] – 3/11/2010
Rep Garamendi, John [CA-10] – 3/16/2010 Rep Green, Al [TX-9] – 3/11/2010
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] – 3/11/2010 Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 3/11/2010
Rep Hall, John J. [NY-19] – 3/11/2010 Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 3/11/2010
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 3/11/2010 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] – 3/11/2010
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] – 3/18/2010 Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] – 3/16/2010
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] – 3/11/2010 Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] – 3/16/2010
Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] – 3/16/2010 Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] – 3/9/2010
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] – 3/11/2010 Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] – 3/11/2010
Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] – 3/11/2010 Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 3/11/2010
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] – 3/11/2010 Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] – 3/16/2010
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] – 3/9/2010 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] – 3/11/2010
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] – 3/11/2010 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] – 3/11/2010
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 3/11/2010 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] – 3/11/2010
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] – 3/11/2010 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] – 3/16/2010
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] – 3/11/2010 Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] – 3/11/2010
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] – 3/16/2010 Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] – 3/11/2010
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 3/16/2010 Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR] – 3/11/2010
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] – 3/9/2010 Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] – 3/9/2010
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] – 3/11/2010 Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] – 3/18/2010
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] – 3/16/2010 Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP] – 3/11/2010
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] – 3/11/2010 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 3/9/2010
Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3] – 3/18/2010 Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] – 3/9/2010
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] – 3/16/2010 Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] – 3/11/2010
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] – 3/16/2010 Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] – 3/16/2010
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 3/11/2010 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] – 3/11/2010
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] – 3/11/2010 Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] – 3/9/2010
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] – 3/11/2010 Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 3/17/2010
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 3/11/2010 Rep Wu, David [OR-1] – 3/11/2010


Now compare the above list to the Congressional Progressive Caucus MEMBERS list:

Caucus Member List

Friday February 20, 2009


Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)

Senate Members

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

Hon. Sherrod Brown (OH)

Hon. Tom Udall (NM)

House Members

Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Eric Massa (NY-29)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Notations about past members:

Former members



If the PROGRESSIVES cannot PUSH America into socialized medicine one way, they will PUSH in another.

A “Back Door” amendment to Social Security to promote socialized medicine in America.

My question is:  HOW did Alan Grayson climb the ladder so quickly in the Progressive Caucus as a FRESHMAN Representative? Sworn in as FRESHMAN Representative in January 2009; on the Progressive Caucus member list as a VICE-CHAIR in February 2009…..


WHO does he know?  WHO sent him?

Grayson describes himself as having been a sick child who grew up “in the tenements” in the Bronx. He attended Harvard Law School, and was the first president of IDT Corp., a telecommunications company, before returning to the practice of law.

Along the way, he has become wealthy. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, ranked him 12th among all members of Congress based on financial disclosure forms, with a minimum net worth of $31.12 million.

Grayson was among those pushing hard to restrict bonuses of companies that take bailout money. He’s become a vocal member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He raised eyebrows by hiring Matt Stoller, a former political consultant and firebrand liberal blogger (Open, as his senior policy adviser.

 Other photos:


The ONLY thing the Progressives FEAR is the ballot box.


Media Negligence? NY Times, WaPo willing tools of astroturf scam


THIS really doesn’t surprise me at all.

The NY Times and Wapo  have chosen through political manipulation or adherence to strict progressivism to actually allow this astroturf to be passed off as truth.


Thomas Lifson at American Thinker writes:

NY Times, WaPo willing tools of astroturf scam

March 4, 2010

Thanks to bloggers, two liberal newspapers have been busted as willing tools of a sophisticated astroturf PR scam by the Obama camp. Desperate over the wildfire success of the Tea Party movement, an astroturf group, the Coffee Party Movement, was created to be portrayed as “civilized” in contrast to the media caricature of the Tea Parties as racist, violent, and in-bred. Co-opting the energy, and splintering the protests, as well as drawing attention away are the obvious intentions.

David Axelrod is a proud maestro of astroturfing, having ginned up phony grass roots groups for private clients as well as politicians for years before guiding Obama’s way to the White House.


Both the New York Times and Washington Post willingly portrayed the political operative who fronted the astroturf group, Annabel Park, as a civic-minded activist. From the Times:


“We’re not the opposite of the Tea Party,” Ms. Park, 41, said. “We’re a different model of civic participation, but in the end we may want some of the same things.”

The Tea Party argues for stripping the federal government of many of its roles, and that if government has to be involved, it should be mostly state governments.

“The way I see it,” Ms. Park said, “our government is diseased, but you don’t abandon it because it’s ill. It’s the only body we have to address collective problems. You can’t bound government according to state borders when companies don’t do that, air doesn’t. It just doesn’t fit with the world.”

Still, she said, “we’ve got to send a message to people in Washington that you have to learn how to work together, you have to learn how to talk about these issues without acting like you’re in an ultimate fighting session.”


The WaPo described Park as follows, in an online chat it published:


Annabel Park, founder of Coffee Party USA, a grassroots online Facebook/Coffee Party) network which advocates cooperation among elected representatives and promotes civil public discourse, was online Friday, Feb. 26, at 2 p.m. ET to discuss an alternative to the Tea Party movement.


It didn’t take long for bloggers to dig up the fact that Park is a professional political operative in the Obama camp. Thanks to Twitter, Linked-in and cached websites that linger on after being taken down, the evidence is all available. Frank Ross of Big Journalism has assembled the evidence.


… her claim that the Coffee Party is “purely grassroots” and “independent of any party” is laughably rebutted by the fact that the registrant for the website was listed as “Real Virginians For Webb, 14461 Sedona Drive, Gainesville, Virginia 20155″ until the information suddenly went private behind a proxy. That’s “Webb” as in Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, one of at least two elected Democrats for whom Park has actively campaigned….

The other Democrat? Barack Obama. So intense was her support for the would-be president that Park co-directed a video for the YouTube channel, UnitedForObama, in which she encourages her mother to give a pro-Obama testimonial in their native Korean. The slick four-minute production, titled “Annabel’s Mom Takes on Sarah Palin, In Korean!!!,” features jaunty piano music and English translations of her mother’s homage to Obama, including this comment, which has the vague ring of a “Dear Leader” haiku:

I listened to Obama’s speeches/and, though my English isn’t perfect/I started to change my mind about him./I came to understand/what he wanted to accomplish/and what we really need is Obama.


“What is even more remarkable is that lurking on the web is proof that Park’s politics could be no surprise to either paper. She had published an op-ed on the WaPo, and actually worked at the NYT as a researcher!


The willingness of these newspapers to go along with an effort to dupe the public into accepting an astroturf group as a genuine grass roots group is despicable.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

The New York Times and Washington Post are promoting a group called the “Coffee Party” organized by filmmaker Annabel Park.

The Coffee Party is a political parasite which presents itself as something it is not. As reported in the NY Times [see update below], Park presents herself as not hostile to the Tea Party movement, and in fact, hopes to bring some Tea Partiers into her group:

“We’re not the opposite of the Tea Party,” Ms. Park, 41, said. “We’re a different model of civic participation, but in the end we may want some of the same things.” ….

Ms. Park and chapter organizers said they would invite Tea Party members to join their Coffee counterparts in discussions. “We need to roll up our sleeves, put our heads together and work it out,” she said. “That’s, to me, an American way of doing this.”

In fact, a simple internet search (which the NY Times apparently is not capable of doing) reveals that Park organized the Coffee Party for the specific purpose of undermining the Tea Party movement.

Park is a former Strategy Analyst [Park’s Linked In page has been taken down, here is a cached link] at the NY Times who was one of organizers and operators of the United for Obama video channel at YouTube:

A Korean-American filmmaker is in charge of creating video clips that are playing a role in increasing support for Senator Barack Obama, the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

“I found that people have little understanding of the change that Senator Barack Obama is advocating. I thought from my experience in using videos for civil movements that videos would be the best way to promote the need for change and for Obama. That’s why I decided to work for the Obama campaign,” Annabel Park said.



Park’s Twitter history leaves no doubt as to her hatred of the Tea Party movement, and the formation of the Coffee Party as a counterweight.


It is very clear from Park’s background, and her own Tweets, that the Coffee Party simply is part of the perpetual Obama campaign, a means by which to subvert the real grassroots Tea Party movement by co-opting part of the message, but in a way which supports keeping Obama in power.

Excerpted; Read and see entire information here


In true progressivism fashion……The ends justify the means.


The Progressives think Americans are TOO STUPID to realize what they are up to.

Hypocrisy at Its Best: Obama and Democrats on Reconciliation/Nuclear Option 2005…Antithesis Anyone?


In Their Own Words:


Reconciliation/Nuclear Option only good when its your side that wants to use it.

Debate the bill and vote as our Founding Fathers intended…..

Obama’s Giveaway to Progressives/Labor Unions: Plan to Seek Use of U.S. Contracts as a Wage Lever


From Steven Greenhouse at the New York Times:

February 25, 2010

The Obama administration is planning to use the government’s enormous buying power to prod private companies to improve wages and benefits for millions of workers, according to White House officials and several interest groups briefed on the plan.

By altering how it awards $500 billion in contracts each year, the government would disqualify more companies with labor, environmental or other violations and give an edge to companies that offer better levels of pay, health coverage, pensions and other benefits, the officials said.

Because nearly one in four workers is employed by companies that have contracts with the federal government, administration officials see the plan as a way to shape social policy and lift more families into the middle class. It would affect contracts like those awarded to make Army uniforms, clean federal buildings and mow lawns at military bases.

Although the details are still being worked out, the outline of the plan is drawing fierce opposition from business groups and Republican lawmakers. They see it as a gift to organized labor and say it would drive up costs for the government in the face of a $1.3 trillion budget deficit.

“I’m suspicious of what the end goals are,” said Ben Brubeck, director of labor and federal procurement for Associated Builders and Contractors, which represents 25,000 construction-related companies. “It’s pretty clear the agenda is to give big labor an advantage in federal contracts.”

Critics also said the policy would put small businesses, many of which do not provide rich benefits, at a disadvantage. Furthermore, government officials would find it difficult to evaluate bidders using the new criteria and to determine whether one company’s compensation package should give it an edge, said Alan L. Chvotkin, executive vice president of the Professional Services Council, a coalition of 340 government contractors.

From his earliest days in office, President Obama has called for an overhaul of government procurement policy, citing the contracting scandals of the previous decade involving cost overruns and no-bid contracts.

“The president made it clear that he is committed to reforming government contracts to save taxpayers money while protecting workers and the environment,” a White House spokesman, Bill Burton, said. “The administration is currently gathering data and examining the best ways to do this.”

Two of Mr. Obama’s allies — John Podesta, the Clinton administration chief of staff who headed the president’s transition team, and Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union — have repeatedly pressed the president to use procurement policy to push up wages and benefits.

In testimony last year to the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Podesta said that 400,000 workers employed under federal contracts — like cafeteria workers, security guards and landscaping workers at federal buildings — earn less than $22,000 a year, the federal poverty line for a family of four, assuming just one paycheck in a household.

“We have a president who is talking about bringing more people into the middle class,” Mr. Stern said. “The government should expect contractors to obey the law, and at the same time contractors should not be building a poverty economy, but should be trying to build a high-road economy.”

The officials briefed on the plan said it was being developed by officials in the Office of Management and Budget, the White House Office of Legal Counsel, the Treasury, Justice and Labor Departments and the vice president’s Middle Class Task Force.

Even as business groups press the administration for more details, they are denouncing the plan, tentatively named the High Road Procurement Policy.

The Daily Caller, a conservative Web site, reported Feb. 4 that the plan would “heavily favor government contractors that implement policies designed by organized labor.”

Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the United States Chamber of Commerce, called the plan a “warmed-over version” of President Bill Clinton’s regulations that sought to bar federal agencies from awarding contracts to companies with a record of breaking labor, environmental or consumer laws. President George W. Bush vacated those regulations soon after taking office.

“We strongly opposed the Clinton blacklist regulations,” Mr. Johnson said, “and this appears worse than that.”

On Feb. 2, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and four other Republican senators sent a letter to Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House budget office, saying, “We are concerned that the imposition of these requirements, during a time of significant economic turmoil in the private sector and tight federal budgets, could have serious, negative consequences, especially for our nation’s small businesses.”

Excerpted; continue reading HERE.




Union Giveaways That Will Hit Your Wallet

January 26, 2010

The Washington Times ran an Op-Ed by Brett McMahon, vice-president of ABC member Miller & Long Concrete Construction, documenting a number of backroom deals that the White House and Congress cut with Big Labor that will harm private sector job creation and small businesses while giving Big Labor a big advantage (”Yet Another Reason to Oppose Obamacare: Union Giveaways That Will Hit Your Wallet,” 1/26/10). 

McMahon highlights President Obama’s pro-project labor agreement (PLA) Executive Order 13502 as a prime example of a special interest giveaway that will hit your wallet (along with the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and some pro-Big Labor language in the health care reform legislation).

McMahon on potential PLAs on three federal projects in Washington, D.C. selected in the GSA’s Procurement Instructional Bulletin 09-02:

So, the District of Columbia is about to witness one of those unhappy occasions where local events become a symptom of the nation’s policy problems We’ll learn the cost of pandering to Big Labor’s agenda through the construction and renovation of three federal buildings in Washington managed by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and funded by stimulus dollars.

These projects will be large, sought-after and likely require bidders to follow pro-Big Labor guidelines set forth in discriminatory and costly project labor agreements (PLAs) that will lock out the 92 percent of the District construction workforce that doesn’t belong to a union.

PLAs give Big Labor a big advantage over nonunion contractors competing for lucrative federal contracts. Those agreements have a public record of poor performance and extra costs (see the Massachusetts Big Dig, running $14 billion over budget and counting).

In fact, the only reason PLAs are even being considered on these projects is that President Obama’s first gift to Big Labor last February included his signature on Executive Order 13502, encouraging agencies like the GSA to require PLAs on all federal jobs over $25 million. The president marketed PLAs as a way to prevent labor unrest and keep federal jobs on-time and on-budget. But a recent study by the Beacon Hill Institute in Boston undermines the claims, finding no evidence of labor unrest from 2001 to 2008 when PLAs were prohibited on federal and federally-assisted projects. In short, the report found that PLAs are a solution in search of a problem.

But Federal agency officials also don’t seem to be familiar with the extensive research showing that PLAs add an average 10-18 percent cost to every job they touch. If your community needs five schools and now you can only afford four, thank the president and his Big Labor pals.

Still who can blame the GSA? Government-mandated PLAs were virtually nonexistent during the last administration when a presidential order prohibited wasteful PLAs on such projects. And there have yet to be any government mandated-PLAs executed under Mr. Obama’s watch because the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council has yet to finalize his order.

Eighty-five percent of the nation’s construction workforce has chosen to work without belonging to a union. We will have to sit and wait on the FAR Council to learn the fate of open competition on job-preserving federal contracts.

As a D.C.-area nonunion contractor, I worry that the GSA’s decision to flirt with PLAs on those three projects – without waiting for the FAR Council to issue a rule – will cause chaos for area construction. Chaos in the form of litigation, badly-needed projects delayed, job-creating opportunities wasted and taxpayers cheated.

The bidding process the GSA uses is riddled with problems that decrease the number of qualified bidders and increase costs. The Washington Times, in fact, recently covered the controversy already brewing.

The truth is that all of us have a vested interest in preserving open competition in the construction industry – whether we’re a contractor or a taxpayer hoping to see our paycheck contributions used wisely. I think District residents are smart enough to know what’s in their best interest – it’s just a shame we’re being undermined by Mr. Obama’s debt to Big Labor.


Progressives and Unions abetting forced unionization of all businesses?  Federal jobs are only the beginning.

Progressives now trying to Unionize the…….Unemployed.

Forced unionism of all businesses will only lead to only Federal jobs after bankrupting small businesses.  Is this the ultimate utopia of the progressives?

Things to watch for in the NEAR future:

EFCA bill in Congress: aka Check Card legislation (end of secret balloting on whether to unionize a business)

Immigration bill to give ILLEGAL aliens amnesty in America. (to build Progressive ranks).

The Left Terrified of the Tea Party Movement: Full-on Anti Tea Party Assault – Brace For Impact


Joy Tiz at Canada Free Press writes:

February 24, 2010

Never before has attending CPAC been considered wildly controversial. This year, too many are taking sides and drawing lines. The presence of a gay rights group or a few Birchers is catastrophic. Boycott CPAC! Yeah, that’ll show ‘em. The crowd ended up being a measly 10,000.

Then we are treated to Huckabee’s hissy .

“Huckabee said the rise of the tea party movement had ‘Taken all of the oxygen out of the room,’ rendering the venerable conference far less relevant than it had been in previous years.”

Is nobody getting what’s going on here? The left is now so terrified of the Tea Party that they are in full-on assault mode. Washed up Clinton hacks are plotting an anti-Tea Party surge:

“Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a ‘push/pull’ strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘urn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign. (Has MSNBC already been notified?)”

“Big Government has also learned that James Carville will head up the effort.”

They may as well spare themselves the trouble if we continue to put all of our collective energy into destroying each other. When conservative talk show hosts bash each other, only the liberals win. Do we really have to make it an either/or scenario? Or can we listen to and enjoy a variety of hosts and pundits? Take what you need and leave the rest.

The beauty of the Tea Party is in its lack of top down leadership. Sure, we can all squabble amongst ourselves about policy. But, the conservative values driving the tea party: limited government, lower taxes, personal liberty and responsibility are unassailable.

The worst thing that could happen to the Tea Party is that it become one solid organized movement with a “leader” at the top. That runs completely against our most basic tenet: personal liberty.

In 2008, we allowed the left to pick our candidate and look how that all turned out.

Liberals are infiltrating the Tea Party groups at all levels;  juvenile trolls are stirring things up on conservative sites. This infighting is exactly what they want.

The Left is more frightened about the Tea Parties than they were about Sarah Palin:

“We like both The Economist and Politico. But assertions such as these are tone-deaf, inside-the-Beltway punditry at its worst. They do the American people a profound disservice by failing to portray the Tea Party movement as what it is: A disturbing—one might say downright spooky—insurgency of the paranoid right-wing fringe. This isn’t a snide liberal pronouncement. It’s a verified sociological fact, as recent survey data from California make clear.”

Well, you can’t argue with a “verified sociological fact”;  particularly one coming from California.

The Democrats are tearing themselves apart; this is not the model we should be using for our own upcoming elections.

Let’s never forget that Obama and his accomplices are paid agitators, also known as “community organizers’. They are also trained Alinskyites. The biggest threat to the Tea Party movement is coming from within as long as we insist on focusing all of our energy brawling with each other rather than confront the real threat that sits in the White House.

Nobody is going to agree on every single point. But, the Tea Party movement is literally our last best hope at thwarting the Soros/Obama agenda. Recognize that the Left is agitating for a complete collapse of the movement. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians had best learn to stop flying into a blind rage every time someone disagrees with them on some point and stay focused on the prize: a return to Constitutional principles.


“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

 -Samuel Adams”