There is additional current evidence that we need to replace the ten representatives that have been selected by WWY (We’re Watching You) as targets for replacement in 2010.

All ten are following the party line – in direct opposition to the interests of American citizens. They are doing exactly what Nancy Pelosi wants them to do – bury H.Res. 554 which calls for posting all bills online 72 hrs. before voting.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS SELECTED BY GROUP FOR MONITORING

Townhall, USA, (October 18, 2009) - The ballots are in, and out of 435 deserving candidates, the “top ten reprobates” have been chosen.

The political action group, “We’re Watching You” has announced its selection of the democrat incumbents who are most likely to lose their seats in the 2010 mid-term elections. The ten will now be closely monitored, and if their subsequent votes are viewed to be “in opposition to the Constitution and the desires of the American people,” they will be targeted for replacement.

A WWY spokesperson explained that the group will subject the selected members of the democrat majority to constant scrutiny. Each time there is legislative activity, the votes and positions of the select ten will be captured and evaluated against conservative ideals. If the representative votes in a manner that is damaging to the Constitution or conservative principles, that representative can expect to receive warning messages from WWY members.

The messages will warn them that if they continue to vote with Speaker Pelosi and against the interest of the American people, the WWY group will launch a campaign seeking to remove them from office. The campaign will include raising campaign funds for opponents.

About We’re Watching You – WWY is a grassroots political activist group that is dedicated to the task of influencing Congress to act in the best interest of the citizens of America.

Once that is finalized (I expect no later than next week), we will need to get the list publicized by any means possible (publicity is Stage Two). For this, we’ll need everyone who can spare a little time (minutes) to help generate contacts.

We’ll want to contact local talk shows in our respective areas in hopes that they will help publicize the movement. We will also want to get information to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. and use any other methods that will help get exposure, like Tea Party groups, etc..

I have secured a domain name (werewatchingyou.net) and a hosted website on which we can explain the program and suggest activities. We will NOT take contributions or solicit donations via the website, it will be informational only. The idea is that we may find it easier to get a mention of a website from a media personality than any lengthy explanation. Then, if an interested party goes to the site, he/she will find an explanation of our activities. The site is currently “under construction,” and should be available for initial viewing (absent full content) by Friday, this week.

My hope is that we can get talk show hosts to say something as simple as: “I’ve just been made aware of a group that is working towards retaking democrat House seats, check them out at: werewatchingyou.net,” or something like that – the important thing will be to mention the website.

I have also begun composing a “boilerplate” letter/e-mail to go to the media folks. I’ll forward a draft to members as soon as it’s done. I will be soliciting input in the form of comments and suggestions from all members at each step of the process. This needs to be a group activity, and many heads are better than one.

I have located reputable sources for the following data on the representatives:

• The CPVI (Cook Partisan Voting Index) which calculates the “lean” of a district – towards Republican or primarily democrat, and by how much
• Ratings by interest groups, in two sets:
  • Liberal groups: SEIU, ACLU, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood
  • Conservative groups: National Taxpayers Union, American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, and Freedom Works (FYI, I originally included the NRA, but almost all of the 27 currently on the list had an “A” rating so I dropped the NRA as not being a worthwhile filter)
• Identification of those districts that will be targeted by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) for campaign activity to unseat a democrat incumbent
• How often does representative vote with his/her party (percent voting the party line and sticking with Pelosi)
• Campaign contributions (in dollars) in the war chest to date (reports look like most are dated in June or July, 2009
• The number of terms served

Additional sources for ACCURATE data will be welcome.

This data is already entered into the spreadsheet for 27 democrat House incumbents. Not all data is available for all reps - e.g., freshmen reps are too new to have ratings by the interest groups yet.

And just for grins, I included a line for Barney Frank and John McCain, and plugged in their ratings just to see how they compared!

I feel like we need to look at the other democrat representatives and add additional ones to expand the pool from which we choose the “finalists.” I’d also like to see a survey of major topics that interest us (as conservatives) so we can weight the information categories properly.

There you have it. If we can create some momentum, we can have a good start down a path to take back House seats and reverse the headlong liberal move away from Constitutional government.

This is still a matter of timing – the sooner we can begin to get our message in the hands of the targeted democrat representatives, the sooner we can have an impact.

Let me know of your comments, thoughts, and suggestions.

Garnet92

This post presumes that you’ve already read my post of September 30^th (New Rules of Engagement for 2010), so if you haven’t, please read it first so the contents of this post make more sense.

The purpose of the plan I proposed is to influence selected democrats in the House to vote against Obama/Pelosi/Reid-pushed anti-American bills (like Owe-bamacare, more stimulus, upcoming immigration bills, etc.) by sending them individual e-mails explaining why we (hopefully, a lot of us) will be watching them, and if they vote against Constitutional principles, we will work to defeat them by contributing to their opponents.

The primary intent is to influence the outcome of votes on the targeted bills by intimidating the weakest democrats, especially in vulnerable districts, to vote against the bills or lose their seats. This is intended to stop the headlong rush to pass Obama’s Globalistic/Socialist agenda. Additionally, we will hope to defeat these targeted democrats in 2010 by contributing to their opponents, thereby gaining seats in the House. It is not inconceivable that we could regain control of the House.

In the plan I proposed, I would contribute $1,000. That $1,000 would be distributed among ten selected opponents, each would receive $100. If only 10,000 other individuals, from all across the country, did the same, each of those ten opponents would receive $1,000,000 in additional campaign contributions – A MILLION DOLLARS. In some districts, that could make the difference. As I said in the earlier post, my pitiful $100 won’t get anyone’s attention, but if the same democrat receives hundreds or thousands of e-mails from “We’re Watching You” members, he/she will notice. I already purchased the domain name “werewatchingyou.net,” so we have a name. We will have a website (although I haven’t yet learned to edit it properly).

And, lest you feel that there are RINOs that should lose their seats as well, I agree, they’re not safe either, but for now, let’s first concentrate on reducing the democrat’s majority in the House.

I’ve already started research on identifying those ten targeted reprobates (maybe more) and have identified sources of pertinent information about House members. The problem is, this is a big job and in order to identify the targeted representatives quickly, I need help. The sooner we can get going on this, the more opportunity there is to affect votes on upcoming important bills.

So, I’m asking for volunteers to help gather information, verify it, and summarize it into a standardized format. The information MUST BE ACCURATE. There is no quicker way for us to lose credibility than to post bad information.

And finally, we’ll be doing this thing as a group. I am not interested in self-aggrandizement, so I’m not doing this for any kind of personal recognition. While I will act as coordinator, this is intended to be a group effort in which we will all share any benefits. We’ll be a group of patriots working towards a common goal – to defeat the anti-American bills yet to come from Obama/Pelosi/Reid and retake the House in 2010.

Following are a few of the sources of information that I’ve already located (and I’m still looking). Obviously, additional reliable sources will be welcomed.

• Likelihood of retaining seat in next election (seat retention is: likely, leaning, toss up) or effectively not contested, by state and districts.
• Ratings by interest groups (e.g., NRA, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, NEA, unions, etc.).
• How often representative votes with his/her party (party line votes).
• A source to identify representative’s vote(s) on any specific bill (HR 1, HR 2454, etc.).
• The political environment of the rep’s district – whether district tends to vote D or R and extent of lean (i.e., R+20 is strongly Republican district, D+1 is weakly Democrat). Vote in the district that put the rep in office and how that district voted in last two Presidential elections.
• Project Vote Smart issues a “Political Courage Test.” Not all candidates take it. But if one does, it captures the selected representative’s positions on a large number of issues. Includes whether the rep would support an increase/decrease/no change to individual budgetary groups.
• 2010 campaign contributions to date for incumbent and opponents.
• Rep’s approximate net worth, assets, liabilities
• Percentage of missed votes by rep.
• Leadership: number of sponsored bills supported by other reps.
• Committees served on.
• And lots of other miscellaneous information.

If you’re interested and have some time available to do some Google-type research, leave a comment and I’ll contact you. I am also interested in any ideas anyone may have regarding “the plan,” pro or con.

We'll soon be able to say to many democrat members of the House ... better be careful ... We’re Watching You!

Chapter the One'th

Once upon a time, long, long ago, there was a magical kingdom called Foo. The land of Foo was ruled by a tyrannical King named A’mabo. He was a dark man, evil and foreboding, and he ruled Foo with an iron fist. He had only occupied the throne for less than a year but had already tripled the taxes on the kingdom’s people and taken much more of their wealth than any ruler before him. He abolished their freedoms, brainwashed their children, and spied on their activities. The peasants were mad; they were starving and they were growing rebellious.

Before King A’mabo assumed the throne, the kingdom was happy and prosperous. Food was plentiful and cheap and the water was cool and sweet. Unicorns gamboled in the villages, free to prance and frolic, and the sky was filled with butterflies and rainbows. Flowers bloomed everywhere and breezes smelled of jasmine and honeysuckle. Even the wart hogs and dung beetles were beautiful and the lowliest peasants had perfect teeth, silky hair (with no split ends), and slim, healthy bodies. It was a wondrous place.

King George (the old King) had wearied of doing king stuff and retired to the La Dientes Falsos senior living center in Florida to live out his days playing bridge and golf. The people of Foo, who loved King George, gave him retirement presents of white slip-on shoes and a white belt so he would fit in with the other elders.

His final decree was to let his subjects choose their next king. He had confidence that they would choose wisely and not vote for a charlatan who would promise peace and prosperity but deliver warts and toenail fungus.

When he later learned of the plight of his beloved people, he lamented, “I pity the Foo.”

But it was too late.

After the coronation, the royal family moved into the magnificent white castle atop the tallest hill in the country. The castle was surrounded by a moat filled with alligators. Townspeople said that there were so many alligators that one could walk across their backs to the other side. But that was an exaggeration attested to by Stumpy the smithy, Howard the gelding, and Hopping John.

The royal family included A’mabo’s queen, Queen Fartwaddle and their two daughters, Princess Uh-huh and Princess Nuh-uh. The Princesses were delightful, but Queen Fartwaddle was a tyrant just like the King. The twenty-two Ladies in Waiting who attended her spent all their time waiting for the Queen to choose her handbags and shoes. Their only other responsibility was to assure her that her a$$ didn’t look big. She was an evil, vain woman and insisted that her size-twelves be made from kitten or bunny fur. What townspeople thought was a petting zoo was actually a fur farm, growing the skins for her bags and shoes.

They lived the royal lifestyle, they threw lavish parties, inviting Kings and Queens, Lords and Ladies from all over the land. They came from the surrounding kingdoms of Fee, Fie, Foe and Fum and each tried to outdo the other in every form of competition.

Shortly after A’mabo assumed the throne, Foo hosted a summit meeting. Rulers of the neighboring countries gathered to discuss trade tariffs and illegal immigration. Attending were: King High of Fee, Why of Fi, Moe of Fo, and Who of Fum. As usual, there were a few problems. King Why of Fi complained of a lack of hot spots and King High of Fee groused about the cost of items in his minibar and the valet parking scratching his tricked-out Italian carriage.

As they entered the grand hall, they greeted one another: King Who hugged Moe while Why got High, then Who hugged High and Moe got Why. And finally, King Who got Why and Moe got High. Kings Moe and Why were last seen wandering around outside the castle looking for Twinkies and chili dogs. Luckily they all had those “Hello, My Name Is” tags so they could tell who was Who and who was High.

King A’mabo welcomed the leaders and then bowed before each leader and kissed their rings. He apologized for the previous King George’s warlike actions. “There is no place in the 11^th century for cowboys,” he said. “Foo’s Folly” he called King George, and berated everything he did. He committed to unilaterally cut back his legions, knights, and archers, and reduce the number of catapults and trebuchets manned by the Foolean Guard. He would be a peaceful King even if it meant surrendering to anyone who attacked Foo.

Behind his back, the other Kings made fun of him, “what a wuss,” they were heard to say. They’d accept his gifts of aid and pretend to be allies, but they knew he was all talk and had no cajones. He couldn’t be trusted And they knew that all was not well in Foo.

Lately, even the Queen had angered the townspeople by making regular trips into the village to get arugula and kale for the Princesses’ pet hamster, Cheney. Each time, her entourage required the royal carriage, three chase carriages, a scribe carriage, an ambucarriage and a contingent of the Queen’s flying monkey guard. Townspeople complained that the Queen could have sent a pigeon to Dominos, and they would have delivered in 30 minutes, saving the country beaucoup money.

The royal carriage was called “Peasant One.” It was pulled by a herd of peasants instead of horses. Horses were a protected species and pulling a carriage was demeaning. Besides, the peasants didn’t pollute the streets nearly as much as the horses (their droppings were much smaller) and the King wanted to be seen as reducing poo-lution.

The King’s inner circle (his soothsayers, sorcerers, and wizards) advised him on all matters, large and small, since the King was born without a brain (he had only a small part of his uhh-poral lobe). He spoke beautifully, but could only do so when reading his decrees from scrolls. He had no thoughts of his own but depended on his staff to feed him his ideas. He had no memory of what he’d read and frequently contradicted himself. At court, his Deputy Wizard, Rhamaczar, spoke the words (while hiding behind a curtain) and the King mouthed them to appear as if he were speaking. This subterfuge was widely known ever since the King nodded off and snored briefly, even while “his” words continued. But he was the King and no one dared confront him.

“Anger the King at your peril,” was whispered among the population. It was said that the King used a Board of Appendages to determine punishment for an offense. His Czar of Punishment, Lord Cleaver, threw a dart and where it landed determined which appendage was chopped off. Unfortunately, many men brought before the Board suffered due to the large space allocated to the uniquely male appendage. This contributed to many male members being whacked off.

Second in command was Lord Axlerod, who developed the King’s wealth redistribution decree. The King’s advisors felt that the peasants were not capable of handling wealth, and so it should be redistributed to a royal “lockbox” attended to by Lord Gore, and invested properly by the King. Supposedly, the wealth (along with generous interest) would be kept safe and would be returned to the peasants to support them as they grew old. Lord Madoff was the King’s Czar of Schemes and he assured the King that the condominium development in Ponzi was a sound investment.

Lord Madoff’s children, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were on the board of Acorn (A Crappy Organization Responsible for Nothing) which specialized in registering peasants, filing their taxes, and acquiring land for a nonprofit subsidiary, The Pimpenho Home, who provided housing for immigrant orphan teenage girls.

Being a greedy tyrant, the King’s tax policies had increased tributes manyfold and he confiscated most of the corn and grain from the villages - the peasants were starving. “Let them eat Chinese takeout,” was his solution. But alas, there were no Chinese restaurants yet, only a very expensive Thai buffet and a Ruth’s Chris steakhouse. As a result, his subjects were malnourished and many contracted a deadly virus. The disease was spread by birds and became known as the Bird Foo virus.

The King also decreed a Humour Care plan that would ensure free blood-letting and treatment of phlegm disorders. The townspeople rebelled and fought his A’mabocare program, calling the plan a phlegm flim-flam, but to no avail – it could not be stopped. In reality, the program was a sham, it was really a scheme to enrich the King’s treasury. The program required that healers use only free-range leeches supplied by a royal subsidiary and his minions sold the blood from blood-letting to Count Barackcula for “research.” In fact, so much blood was drawn from villagers, that they became pale and colorless – a result of the Single Pallor system.  

He started a “Cash for Cows” program where villagers could trade in their old, shriveled-up, milked-out cows for a newer model. The newer cows gave more milk and reduced fart volume (thereby improving air quality). But, as with the King’s other mandates, the program didn’t work. The old cows immediately became steaks for the royal family while the villagers were still waiting for the delivery of their new, improved Cow, release 2.0. The townspeople were udderly disgusted and a new moo-ment began to rise up.

An undercurrent of rebellion was spreading in Foo. Some villagers began holding PEA parties (Peasants Expressing Angst) and talking trash about the evil King and the changes he’d made to their country - once filled with hope. The PEA nuts (as they were called) met in secret to avoid the King’s spies and those pesky villagers who were encouraged to rat out the patriots. A loosly-formed group (the Foopublicans) would attempt to gain control of Foo, but they were weak and ineffectual. Their only hope lay with Sarah of Wasilla, a good witch, and her ability to cast a spell over the land.

Three wise men, Count Larry, Count Moe, and Curly (couldn’t count) were dispatched to find Sarah and beg her to intercede. She lived in a cold, far-off land called Moose-on-ice.

When the travelers finally found Sarah the good witch, she welcomed them with "special" brownies and decaf mead and bade them to tell tales of their quest for good witchery. As Sarah listened, she recognized the work of her arch enemy, the evil wizard, Ratbastard of Soros.

Ratbastard was known far and wide as the most loathsome creature ever to walk the earth. It was said that when Satan cursed, he used Ratbastard’s name. He never got his hands dirty, but cast his evil spells on humans to do his dastardly deeds. He gave bribes of gold and silver to those in charge to do his bidding, and he always got his way. He would be a formidable adversary.

~~~

Don’t miss the next exciting episode of “In the Land of Foo,” when we’ll see Witch Sarah short-sheet Ratbastard and send her pet barracuda to gnash on his gnoogies.

The Demise of ACORN

ACORN looks to be mortally wounded. Several states have terminated payments to ACORN and the U.S. Congress has begun passing bills that prevent funds from certain federal agencies going to ACORN. Most of these bills and state’s Executive Orders also preclude ACORN from receiving state and federal funds in the future. And that’s not all, one can expect that the large “charitable” funds and individual contributors will shy away from publicly supporting an organization that’s been tainted by widely publicized wrongdoing. When OSI, Tides, and Woods funds pull their support, ACORN will be on life-support, and when membership revenue falls, they will flat-line.

Bringing down ACORN is an event that I thought to be practically impossible just a few months ago. Yes, I understand that the federal legislation must be reconciled and Obama must still sign the final bills, but political expediency (and the looming elections) will prevent even diehard dems from killing all of the resultant legislation. That would be political suicide.

But circumstances change, and now there are two reasons that ACORN will be allowed to pass into eternal slumber: 1) Wade Rathke is no longer Grand Poobah and Fund-Distributor-in-Chief. He was fired from ACORN and now heads ACORN International. He had been the “brains” behind the distribution (laundering) of funds through supposedly unrelated organizations (all coincidently headquartered at his 1024 Elysian Fields location in New Orleans), and 2) the remaining hundreds of other organizations that make up the ACORN Axis of Evil, are still alive and kicking. The powers controlling ACORN will just do a “search and replace” on notes and contracts and fill in one of the other shell organization’s name – get new documents signed and it’s business as usual. Nothing has to change.

Until a REAL, in depth investigation occurs that exposes the ACORN money shuffling scheme, nothing will change.

“Wow, ACORN is being exposed,” I thought. Who’da Thunkit?

And then I stumbled upon this comment on Michelle Malkin’s blog by someone called “Rogue Cheddar” who said,

“It looks like the thread on the ACORN sweater is starting to unravel! Pretty soon those boobs will be fully exposed.”

Obama Lies, Here’s Some Truth

Obama Says: Obama tried arguing again in his speech on September 9^th, 2009, that preventive medicine would save the system money, and therefore would render the system deficit neutral or even cost-effective in the long run. 

¹ In case you’re wondering, who the CBO is and what are their credentials? The Congressional Budget Office is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government. It is the primary government agency that provides economic data to Congress. The CBO was created, by Congress, as an independent nonpartisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Obama says: “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Should We Believe Obama? Again, sounds good. However, even though HR 3200 does state that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the proposed taxpayer-funded affordable premium credits, there is nothing in the bill to enforce it. An amendment to H.R.3200 (Heller) that would have required the use of the SAFE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) program was defeated by democrats in committee. SAFE is already used by seventy-one (71) other programs of this kind, why defeat that stipulation? Because it would have specifically excluded illegal aliens. That’s because the democrats know that, absent a specific exclusion, illegals will get covered “through the back door.”

How could that happen? 1) Without SAFE enforcement, there is insufficient citizenship verification; an illegal can simply claim to be a citizen, 2) unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence² test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance, and 3) democrats favor some form of amnesty. Any new legislation could redefine an individual’s immigration status into something other than “illegal,” (like “interim,” or other term). The result being that, by definition, they would no longer technically “illegal” and become eligible under a law that was written to facilitate this kind of back door slight-of-hand.

² Substantial presence is defined as having been in the United States for at least 31 days during the current year and at least 183 days during the current year and previous two years. No mention is made of legal status in the legislation for determining substantial presence.

A later update suggests that supporters have finally admitted that the bill contained a loophole and steps are (supposedly) being taken to tighten up the language to prevent the illegals from being included in the bill. Sounds like the loophole is fixed, right?

Not so fast. Yet another update, exposing a “back door” to coverage of illegal immigrants. Sen. Chuck Schumer has announced his intention to introduce new comprehensive immigration reform legislation to the Senate this year. Radio America talk-radio host Rodger Hedgecock called the comprehensive immigration reform the Obama administration's "second act," Hedgecock said illegal immigrants initially would be excluded from the health care plan but would have access to it once comprehensive immigration reform is passed by Congress. Hedgecock charged the administration's immigration plan amounts to providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.

And note that Obama used a “new and improved” 30 million figure in his speech, instead of the 47 million previously cited by proponents. Supposedly, the new improved figure excludes those here illegally. But, weren’t those using the 47 million number already saying that illegals weren’t covered? Up until Obama’s speech, the 47 million number was the standard count for those who did not have health insurance – what happened? Did seventeen million suddenly acquire insurance? Anyone paying attention knew, that regardless of statements to the contrary, the 47 million estimate included illegal immigrants. They were lying then, and he is lying now.

Obama says: "We've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse."

Should We Believe Obama? Ok,  if his administration has identified areas of waste and abuse that can be reformed, then why not do it NOW? Cleaning up waste and abuse should be part of any administration’s job description. During the campaign, didn’t he promise to clean up government waste and fraud? We don’t need a new healthcare bill to authorize actions that should be a basic responsibility of any administration.

But wait! There’s another even more obvious reason that Obama’s statement is ludicrous. He is the eighth consecutive president to promise to clean up Medicare waste and fraud. How many succeeded? How many even tried? The “clean up waste and inefficiency” promise has been made by every politician running for every public office since dirt was young. Yet, the promised savings never seem to emerge, do they?

The fraud and waste argument is misdirection; a straw man. Obama knows that it won’t happen, it’s just a convenient placeholder for dollars that reduce the apparent cost of the program. The formula is simple. You simply estimate a program’s cost, subtract how much can be attributed to increased taxes and the remainder automatically becomes the amount that will be saved via “cleaning up the system.”

Obama says: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period."

Should We Believe Obama? If he is true to his word, his statement means that there won’t be a plan. Period.

The most fully fleshed-out plan so far (H.R.3200) was said by the CBO to increase deficits by $228 billion over the 2010-2019 timeframe. Remember that the CBO is Congress’ own independent and nonpartisan agency tasked with providing critical economic data to Congress. In the past, the CBO’s word has been Gospel, why would Obama ignore them now? He can’t admit to the CBO’s projection because that deficit increase would show his earlier statements to be false and doom the bill.

Should We Believe Obama? Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee doesn’t believe him." The reality is that the Obama-backed House bill would explicitly authorize the federal government insurance plan to pay for elective abortions and would explicitly authorize subsidies for private abortion insurance - and all with federal dollars.”

And PolitiFact cites a confirming story that ran in the Chicago Tribune, the day after Obama's Planned Parenthood speech. Washington bureau reporter Mike Dorning wrote that when Obama was asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, the candidate "said it would cover 'reproductive health services.' Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions."

Oops.

Obama says: His plan will “improve efficiency and patient care.”

Should We Believe Obama? Frankly, that’s just impossible. Consider this, we currently have some 800,586 physicians treating our roughly 300,000,000 residents, a ratio of 2.67 doctors per 1,000 people³. To keep medical care at the same level (maintaining the same physician/resident ratio), we’ll need 80,100 more doctors to treat those additional 30 million citizens – where will they come from?

And don’t forget the nurses. Our healthcare system simply couldn’t operate without qualified, trained nurses. We currently have 2,417,150 nurses providing care to 300,000,000 residents – a ratio of 8.07 nurses per 1,000 residents³. Adding another 30 million residents would require an additional 242,100 nurses – where will they come from? How long would it take just to train that many additional nurses?

Even if those physicians didn’t retire or otherwise shut down their practices, an additional 30,000,000 citizens would simply overwhelm the doctors and nurses currently available. And if we did also lose 45% of our current population of doctors, that would mean that we’d be about 440,363 physicians short in total. But, not to worry, our fearless leader tells us that we will improve medical care. Another ludicrous statement, demonstrably false.

³ 2009 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Census

4 The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the first two weeks of September, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part.

Rules for Patriots, by Soiled Againsky

As you know, B. Hussein Obama was well educated in the techniques espoused by the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s rules have become second nature to Obama, so in order to successfully defend against them, it’s is imperative that his opponents (us) become familiar with them as well.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s a refresher on Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

Stop and think. How many examples can you identify that illustrate how the radical democrats use these techniques to further their political ambitions? I’ll bet you can think of many examples.  

In fact, this could be viewed as a teaching moment. We could enlist our middle and high school students to use their intellectual curiosity to identify the ways that Obama and the democrats are using the Alinsky techniques. They could be provided with Alinsky’s rules and encouraged to list the ways that the democrats and Obama are using them. Wouldn’t that be a great political science lesson? In a free and open society, that would be possible – under current circumstances, not a chance.

One of the ways that the radical left uses Alinsky’s rules is when assassinating someone’s character. Take Sarah Palin for example. Here we have a full-bore application of Rule 12, with an assist from Rules 5 and 8. When they targeted Sarah Palin, they ridiculed her, they created an image of a backwoods hick who went to a no-name college and did little more than shuffle papers as Mayor of a dinky small town in Alaska. “She’s a joke,” they said. They pushed that package, over and over, through the bought-and-paid-for OM (Obsolete Media) until the uninformed public thinks that’s who Sarah Palin really is.

And of course, don’t forget President Bush, they used the same techniques (Rules 5, 8, and 12) on him. They ridiculed his intelligence (he couldn’t spell “cat” if you spotted him the “c” and the “t”), created an image of a lying war monger, polarized him (he was for the fat cats and didn’t care about the “little” people), and applied relentless pressure to reinforce that caustic image (which in fact, is still continuing). They have pushed the negative lies hard enough and long enough that they have become (in the minds of some) de facto “truths.”

But Saul’s rules are only part of their arsenal. There’s another basic philosophy that contributes to the left’s playbook.

The Clowart-Piven Strategies.

Cloward-Piven is a socio-political strategy developed by Richard Cloward and Frances Priven (a pair of radical leftist and Colombia University professors) in the 1960s.

It’s a strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into chaos and economic collapse.

If some of this sounds familiar, it is probably because Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals, “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules.” When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

In an article written for The Nation, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create: By crisis, they meant a publicly visible disruption in a targeted institution. Crisis could occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

The Cloward-Piven strategy’s main goal is to impose new stresses on targeted systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

To that end, they enlist two more techniques to achieve the goal. 1) Organizing previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits, but not currently receiving all they can, and 2) identifying new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits, thereby overloading the system. Collapse of the system is the ultimate goal.

One of the most visible proponents of the strategy is ACORN. ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy in order to overwhelm election management.

• They make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
• They register as many democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
• They overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of the deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, ACORN sought a democrat administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state. And now, with Organizer-in-Chief Obama in the White House and the democrats in the majority in both houses of Congress, they are in a position to exert the full force of both anti-capitalistic philosophies towards their goal of overwhelming the system. Remember that once the system collapses, Obama, et al, will ride in on their white (maybe black) horses and save the day with their new Socialist system.

As part of their Cloward & Piven plan, two of the most cherished concepts of our constitutional republic are under attack.

1. Citizen voting. Democrats have succeeded in eliminating any sort of real voter identification, thus allowing untold numbers of illegal votes to be counted. In a close election, illegal votes could change the outcome (remember Al Franken?). This activity can only continue to fester and do irreversible damage to that cherished right - our right to vote. But when ACORN is allowed to affect election outcomes by illegitimate means, our rights are in danger. Our next congressional mid-term elections in 2010 and more importantly, the 2012 Presidential election are both ripe for a Cloward-Piven crisis – especially if the left smells defeat. Voter intimidation, illegal votes, outcome challenges, recounts, and legal action will be used to overwhelm the election process for any race that isn’t a landslide – you can bet the farm on it.

2. Congress. Congress has become an elite hierarchy no longer representative of the people, their allegiance is now to the party rather than to the country. The Cloward-Piven crisis strategy is hard at work in congress and is easily detectable in the writing and passage of bills since January, 2009. Obama and the dems have created artificial crises that require “immediate passage” while providing a “solution” embedded in a bill so large and complex that it is impossible to read and comprehend before voting. This technique has become the norm for this 111^th congress. They are spending this country into oblivion without even knowing the details – and they don’t seem to care. THEY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Now the biggie; how do we combat this full assault on the United States that our founders created and that most of us hold dear?

We must use their own strategies against them.

The first step in defeating these anti-American radicals was to identify their strategy. We finally broke their code – they can no longer slide legislation by us in the dark of night, their attempts to impugn the character of their opponents is falling on deaf ears, and their own misadventures are being exposed for all to see.

Their leadership, in Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (oh my), are being evaluated on their job performance and found wanting. Obama’s approval ratings are plummeting and his disapproval ratings shooting up, while congress’ approval polls are at a new record low. The country, as a whole, is rejecting the rampant rush to Socialism. Breaking Rule 2, they have begun to operate outside of their expertise (campaigning and winning elections) and are now being forced to govern – a task for which they are woefully unqualified and inadequate.

We must continue to apply the pressure (Rule 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up"). We must be relentless in pursuing misstatements, errors, mistakes, and poor judgment by our president and our congresspersons – by name. We should not waste time pummeling congress as a whole – true, as a group, they’re awful. But we must systematically pick our targets, freeze them, and polarize them (Rule 12). Alinsky said, “People hurt faster than institutions.” We must cut off their support network by exposing it and isolate them from sympathy. We figuratively attack selected individuals, point out their negatives, criticize them, ridicule them and when they’re thrown under the bus, move on to our next target.

We must publicize our conservative alternatives (Rule 11), since the OM won’t voluntarily do it. We know that our healthcare system needs reform and we have identified several reasonable, logical solutions that can quickly and economically make it better. But who knows about our alternatives? Not the OM-reading/viewing public. Allow the 1,300 insurance companies in the U.S. to sell their products nationally, institute tort reform, allow tax-free medical savings accounts, allow catastrophic-coverage policies. These are just a few improvements that could have an immediate positive effect on health costs – but the inert public is told that the only alternative we offer is a straw man named “doing nothing”; Obama said that as late as Sunday, September 7^th.

“Making the enemy live up to their own rules,” (Alinsky #4) is exactly what we were able to do in our fight against the socialized medicine that was being forced down our collective throats. We used their own statements against them, we read H.R.3200 and showed our ignorant representatives the page and line where their statements were proven wrong. When our “representatives” do not read and fully understand a bill affecting millions of Americans, that is tantamount to malfeasance – and justification for termination. Congress, as a body, is supposed to draft, debate, and vote on bills. How can members debate and vote on anything when they are ignorant of its contents? Don’t congressional rules require that representatives read bills before voting?

We must hold them accountable, to their own rules – and their own statements. Perhaps the best example of accountability is when Glenn Beck used Van Jones’ own words against him. It’s hard to refute videos that capture words and statements, context and demeanor, when something damaging was said.

And what about the “race card”? Alinsky’s Rule 7 ("A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag") is related to the “boy that cried wolf.” The overuse of a “racist” accusation has become so commonplace now that it has lost its impact. The left has used a racist tag to brand anyone who: 1) disagrees with any statement or policy by any liberal black and, 2) makes any negative comment about Obama or his policies. Conservatives used to be afraid of being labeled as a racist. There was a time when it was damming and no one wanted to be branded with such an ugly appellation. But now, its luster has been worn thin by overuse – it has been so indiscriminately applied that it no longer has any real punch, so go ahead, play the race card – B.F.D.

We must impose new stresses on their systems. We can use the “Clowart-Piven strategies to throw the left into convulsions. Their “leadership” (the president and congress) are so arrogant and inept that they were caught off guard by the peasants “rising up.” They didn’t expect the pushback from the ignorant masses. We need to continue to force new stresses on the democrats, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse. They are in disarray now and we need to keep them fumbling to defend against our newfound assertiveness.

Growing participation in the Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings has awakened a sleeping giant – the heretofore silent majority. But we need to continue building on our successes. Rule 9 states that “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” If we can convince those in congress who are up for reelection that they are going to be put out to pasture in the 2010 mid-term elections, they will be less willing to fall on their swords to benefit the party and the president. Their activities can be slowed between now and the election(s) if they’re worried about keeping their job. We want to instill caution in their votes (but vote them out anyway).

Personally, I’d be willing to sacrifice my two good North Texas representatives (Rep. Sam Johnson, and Sen. John Coryn) and start from scratch just to lose Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Kerry, Waxman, Frank, et al. Many of these relics have made Congress a career – it wasn’t meant to be so. Only in recent years have greedy, power-hungry poseurs begun to consider “public service” to be a permanent career. Until 1901, it was unusual for a member to serve for two terms. Since then, the time of “service” has gradually increased. No longer citizen-legislators, members of congress have converted the privilege of representing the American people into a lifelong profession. We do need to implement term limitations to ensure turnover among our legislators. No more dynasties, no more “lions of the Senate,” only citizens temporarily representing the interests of their neighbors. And, as part of that “reclamation,” we must reclaim our Constitution too.

One thing that we must remember, the left has been driving towards their goal of anti-capitalistic wealth distribution through their preferred vehicles of federal agencies, nonprofits and labor unions for decades. They won’t give up easily or without a fight.

In the end, let us all make a solemn resolution to remember Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and consider the Clowart-Piven techniques in order to remain vigilant and assure the defeat of those who would remake our USA into the USSA (United Socialist States of America).

NOTE: Pesky Truth’s Rules and Practices dictate that the word “president” should be capitalized when referring to a U.S. president by name, unless overridden by a lack of respect for the incumbent.

A note from Garnet92: all parts of this series of articles are long. It’s unfortunate, but necessary. The posts could easily be much longer since there is that much worthwhile information available. I have tried to pare the voluminous data down to the most salient points, but some will feel that there is simply too much to read and skip these pieces. In that case, so be it. However, to those who really want to be informed, you will not get the complete picture without expending some effort.

This is the fourth in a series of articles exposing some little known information about the inner workings of our opposition – the liberal left. In the first three articles, Pesky Truth presented the most influential individuals, the funding sources (foundations, etc.) that provide the money for the liberal groups, followed by a post that concentrated on ACORN.

This piece will highlight other liberal groups that seek to overthrow our Constitution and establish a Socialistic government that eliminates capitalism and (supposedly) provides a Utopia for everyone. This installment includes SEIU, The Shadow Party, and HCAN.

Remember that the players are highlighted in bold RED, the funds, organizations, or groups are highlighted in bold BLUE, and big bucks they throw around are in bold GREEN.

Service Employees International Union

Why is the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) leading this group presentation? Because they contributed more to left-leaning 527 groups than any other funding source over the last three elections. Those 527 recipients were political organizations that channeled money to democratic candidates, PACs (political action committees), and other liberal groups. 527s are so named by referring to the section of the U.S. tax code (Section 527) that controls their operation.

Look at these SEIU contributions:

·         2004: $47,695,646

·         2006: $28,212,510

·         2008: $34,534,324

That’s $110,442,480 spent by SEIU over three elections. The SEIU was the top contributor to 527s in 2006 and 2008.

This looks like a bona fide miracle – all of those janitorial members, those healthcare workers, the government employees – hardly the highest paid workers in the country, somehow managed to contribute over $110 million dollars to leftist causes – it’s like the loaves and fishes all over again!

The SEIU story began in 1921, when members of seven small janitor unions dared to dream that they could build their political strength by forming a single organization, the Building Service Employees International Union.  The BSEIU, a union of mostly immigrant workers chartered by the then-AFL, changed its name to Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in 1968. Chicago-based Local 1, SEIU's first local union, is still organizing janitors and security officers today.

SEIU's membership has grown from 625,000 in 1980 to more than 2 million todayacross the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) ranks among the largest and fastest-growing unions in North America. It has more than 300 local affiliates and 25 state councils. Giving voice to its wish to radically transform an American society that it deems rife with inequity, SEIU's mission is "to improve the lives of workers and their families and create a more just and humane society." Classifying Women and minorities as the most aggrieved victims of discrimination and maltreatment, SEIU notes that 56 percent of its members are women and 40 percent are "people of color."

SEIU members work primarily in three service industry "divisions":

Healthcare:As America's largest union of health care workers, SEIU represents more than 900,000 caregivers and hospital employees, including  some 110,000 nurses and 40,000 doctors in public, private, and non-profit medical institutions.

Public Services:The second largest union of public service employees, SEIU represents over 1,000,000 local and state government workers, public school employees, bus drivers, and childcare providers.

Property Services:SEIU is the largest property services union, with 225,000 workers who clean, maintain, and protect commercial and residential office buildings.

The current President of SEIU is the former New Leftist Andrew Stern, who advanced to the Union's top post in 1996 when his predecessor, John Sweeney, became President of the AFL-CIO.  At the outset of his tenure with SEIU, Stern told his members that he expected "every leader at every level of this union - from the international President to the rank-and-file member - to devote five working days this year to political action

In effect, this was a mandate for those union leaders to work in support of the Democratic Party. Stern also sits on the Executive Committee of America Coming Together, a Democratic Party auxiliary funded by George Soros. Moreover, SEIU is a major component of the so-called "Shadow Party," a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, nonprofit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically far left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Designated as a "527 organization", SEIU is not required to register as a "political organization" with the Federal Election Commission, and consequently may collect as much ”soft money" as it wishes, with no limits on how much it may receive from individuals or corporations. This money, in turn, is funneled to Democratic candidates, political action committees, and other "527" groups pursuing similar agendas.   

After Howard Dean dropped out of the Presidential race in early 2004, Andrew Stern played a major role in persuading the Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, to pick Senator John Edwards as his running mate. As of June 2004, SEIU had already committed $65,000,000  towards defeating incumbent President George W. Bush in that year's November election. The money was used to finance voter registration drives, voter "education" initiatives, get-out-the-vote campaigns, and the efforts of some 2,000 political organizers working full-time against President Bush in 17 key battleground states. Moreover, the Union pledged to supply 50,000 "volunteers" from its membership rolls just prior to, and on, Election Day.

SEIU's membership growth is heavily dependent on the public (i.e., government) sector, where 37.2 percent of employees are currently unionized (as compared to only 8.2 percent of private sector workers). Since the middle of the twentieth century, union membership in the private sector has declined by more than 80 percent. Only in the public sector, have unions grown during this period. Because this is precisely the niche in which SEIU dwells, the Union has a vested interest in helping to elect Democratic leftists who will press to make government ever-larger, so that it can produce an ever-increasing number of union-dues-paying jobs for welfare workers, socialized medicine healthcare workers, Medicare nursing home workers and the like.

SEIU has also taken a stand on matters of national security: In 2004, the Union endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies (such as the Patriot Act) that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This is clearly an extreme left position since SEIU members would be expected to benefit from a secure America just like any other citizen, regardless of skin color or political affiliation.

Finally, here is an example of the power of the SEIU union. Based on contributing more than $33 million to the Obama campaign, you can imagine the clout that they must have with B. Hussein. Now that you know that, you’re ready to consider the following:

Political retribution? Purchased influence? You be the judge.

And here’s an SEIU-related update (August 2, 2009): as this is written, SEIU Local 1000 in California has authorized a strike if Governor Schwarzenegger doesn’t rescind a monthly three-day furlough that reduces state worker’s pay by 15%. The SEIU has 95,000 members in state government in California. The legislation that includes the furlough closed a $24 billion budget gap.

And a later August 7^th update: Guess who we find “defending” the Obamacare proponents at the Town Meetings? SEIU members sporting their purple SEIU t-shirts. In one case, at Russ Carnahan’s event in St. Louis, the SEIU thugs were allowed entry into the meeting hall through a secondary door before ordinary citizens were allowed in (through the front door). They occupied the front half of the hall which reportedly had a 250-person occupant limit before opening the doors to a crowd of about 1,000 taxpayers who were clamoring to get into the meeting. Obviously, they were there in numbers to offset the citizens who were expected to engage in lively debate with Rep. Carnahan. Over 800 peaceful anti-healthcare-plan protestors were excluded from the meeting.

SEIU thugs were again trying to intimidate citizen protestors. One black conservative man was attacked by four SEIU thugs and sent to the hospital. Three SEIU men, all three were wearing purple SEIU t-shirts and one women attacked Kenneth Gladney for handing out conservative items while black. Here’s a link to the complete story on Hot Air:

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/07/photos-and-video-carnahan-event-in-st-louis/

THIS from the Community-Organizer-in-Chief. Isn’t it ironic that he is now against opposition communities organizing?

The Shadow Party

The so-called "Shadow Democratic Party," or "Shadow Party," is a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left and which are engaged in campaigning for Democrats. Activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes -- all identified with the Democratic Party left.

Who first coined the term "Shadow Party?" In the November 5, 2002 Washington Post, writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote of "shadow organizations" springing up to circumvent the McCain-Feingold's soft money ban. Journalist Lorraine Woellert first called the Democrat network a "shadow party" in a September 15, 2003 Business Week article titled, "The Evolution of Campaign Finance?" Other journalists quickly followed suit.

Wall Street billionaire George Soros is the Shadow Party's principal founder and mastermind. Clear hints of Soros' intentions began to appear as early as the 2000 election. It was then that Soros (shouldering about one-third of the cost) sponsored the so-called "Shadow Conventions." Organized by author, columnist, and socialite Arianna Huffington, the Shadow Conventions were media events designed to lure news crews from the real party conventions that year. Huffington held her "Shadow Conventions" at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in Philadelphia and Los Angeles respectively, and featured leftwing critics of mainstream politics. The Shadow Conventions promoted Huffington's view that neither Democrats nor Republicans served the interests of the American people any longer. In Huffington's view, U.S. politics needed a third force to break the deadlock.

The Shadow Conventions were purely symbolic affairs. They fielded no candidates for office. However, many of Soros' activities during the 2000 campaign went beyond symbolism. It was during the 2000 election that Soros first experimented with raising campaign funds through Section 527 groups. In preparation for the 2000 election, Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issues -- gun control and marijuana legalization. Their donations greatly exceeded the limits on political contributions stipulated by campaign finance laws. Soros therefore laundered their contributions through Section 527 groups - dubbed "stealth PACs," by the media of that time.

As of August 2004, the husband-wife team of George and Susan Soros had contributed $13,120,000 to Shadow Party groups and operations, second only to Soros' longtime friend and collaborator, insurance mogul Peter Lewis ($14,175,000). The third leading donor was Jane Fonda ($13,085,750), followed by Hollywood producer Stephen Bing in fourth place ($9,869,014). Other major funders of the Shadow Party include the Tides Foundation and the Open Society Institute. 

During the 1990s, Soros had grown close to Bill and Hillary Clinton. In Hillary, Soros discovered an ideological soulmate. Mrs. Clinton shared his aversion to U.S. "hegemony." Like Soros, she sought to subordinate U.S. interests to global interests; U.S. sovereignty to global government; U.S. law to global courts; U.S. wealth to global taxation; and U.S. productivity to a scheme for global income redistribution. She also shared Soros' hostility to Israel. Soros and Mrs. Clinton formed a friendship based upon their mutual beliefs. When the Clintons left office, Soros dedicated himself to restoring Hillary to the White House. 

At the heart of the American Shadow Party is the Center for American Progress (CAP). It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with a new think tank of its own.

Hillary Clinton tries to minimize the depth of her involvement with the Center for American Progress. But persistent press leaks confirm that she - and not its official President, John Podesta - has ultimate authority at CAP. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile - or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton."

To develop the Shadow Party as a cohesive entity, Harold Ickes undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left's traditional alliance of the "oppressed," the disgruntled, and the "disenfranchised." He formed a coalition of pro-abortion activists, leftwing minority groups and leftwing labor unions. By the time Ickes was done, he had created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a seventh called MoveOn.org. Together, they constitute the administrative core of the Shadow Party. They are: America Coming Together; America Votes; the Center for American Progress; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; The Media Fund; MoveOn.org; and the Thunder Road Group.

The Thunder Road Group (TRG) is the strategic nerve center of the Shadow Party. Founded in early 2004 by Jim Jordan, an attorney with a long track record as a Democrat "spin doctor," it is headquartered at 888 Sixteenth Street NW in Washington, DC. It coordinates strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming Together (ACT), and America Votes, all of whom lease space in the same building. TRG is a political consultancy that combines the roles of strategic planning, polling, opposition research, covert operations, and public relations. It is through TRG that the Shadow Party formulates its plans, dispatches orders to the network, and presents its public face to the world. "[The Thunder Road Group] is an operation unlike any other in politics, devising strategy, message, and public relations services for the 527s," writes The Boston Globe.

In a November 11, 2003 interview with Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post, George Soros described how he had jump-started the Shadow Party in the summer of 2002. The Wall Street billionaire told how he summoned a team of political strategists, activists and Democrat donors to his Southampton beach house in Long Island. According to The Washington Post, attendees included: Morton H. Halperin (Director of Soros' Open Society Institute); John Podesta (Democrat strategist and former Clinton chief of staff); Carl Pope (ACT co-founder, Democrat strategist, environmentalist, and Sierra Club Executive Director); Steve Rosenthal (Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, former chief advisor on union matters to Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, former Deputy Political Director under DNC chairman Ron Brown, and AFL-CIO Political Director from 1996 - 2002); Peter Lewis (major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur, and founder and chairman of Progressive Corporation); Rob Glaser (major Democrat donor and Silicon Valley pioneer); Ellen Malcolm (co-founder and president of ACT and founder of Emily's List); Rob McKay (major Democrat donor, Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation President; Lewis and Dorothy Cullman (major Democrat donors, and founders of the Lewis and Dorothy Cullman Foundation in New York).

At the 2002 meeting, Soros laid out his plan to defeat President Bush. He began implementing his plan even before the meeting had adjourned. Before coffee the next morning, Soros had secured pledges amounting to almost $27,000,000, and the Shadow Party was born.

New groups are constantly being formed in the Shadow Party, while others vanish. To determine how many groups exist in the Shadow Party at any given time is difficult. Even more daunting is trying to determine the purpose of each group. In some cases, groups seem to have no function other than to transfer funds from one 527 to another to obscure the money trail.

As of 2004, a partial list of Shadow Party groups included the following:

Air America Radio

America Coming Together 

America Votes

AFL-CIO

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)

Association of Trial Lawyers of America

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Center for American Progress

Communication Workers of America

Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

EMILY's List

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Media Fund

Media Matters for America 

Million Mom March

Moving America Forward

MoveOn.org

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National Education Association (NEA)

People for the American Way

Planned Parenthood

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Sierra Club

Thunder Road Group

Note: not all listings contain hyperlinks

Health Care for America Now (HCAN)

Ordinarily, I would not have included this one as it is relatively new among the leftist groups. But, as the name implies, it has been created as an advocacy group to press for “Obamacare.”

What is Health Care for America Now (HCAN)? The following is from HCAN’s website:

“Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is a national grassroots campaign of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states representing 30 million people dedicated to winning quality, affordable health care we all can count on in 2009. Our organization and principles are supported by President Obama, Vice President Biden, and more than 190 Members of Congress. [Ed note: that is reason enough to distrust this group.]

We are building a national movement to win comprehensive health care reform by helping mobilize people in their communities to lobby their U.S. Senators and Representatives in Congress to stand up to the insurance companies and other special interest groups to achieve quality, affordable health care in 2009.”  

Our Steering Committee includes: ACORN, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Campaign for Community Change, Children’s Defense Fund Action Council, Communications Workers of America, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), MoveOn.org, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National Women’s Law Center, SEIU, UFCW, USAction, Women's Voices, Women's Vote and Working America.

Check out their “steering committee,” those like-minded groups form a who’s who of left-wing liberal organizations.

According to Michelle Malkin, HCAN was expected to march on Capitol Hill sometime this August. She notes that they won’t have to march very far since they’re headquartered at 1825 K Street in Washington, DC — smack dab in the middle of Beltway lobby land.

MoveOn, of course, is the recreational political vehicle of radical liberal sugar daddy George Soros. The magnate’s financial fingerprints are all over the HCAN coalition, which includes MoveOn, the action fund of the Center for American Progress (a Soros think tank), and the Campaign for America’s Future (a pro-welfare state lobbying outfit).

Indeed, HCAN includes all of the aforementioned groups, plus the AFL-CIO, ACORN and more. HCAN is conducting a joint campaign with Organizing for America (OFA), the Democratic National Committee-run vestiges of President Obama’s campaign. The astroturf has been on public display at events like Pres. Obama’s healthcare town hall meeting in Northern Virginia, where all of the live questions came from members of SEIU, HCAN, and OFA. Heading into the August recess, the White House and the Congressional Democratic Leadership are working in close coordination with outside groups, including but not limited to, HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, and AARP.

In July, Obama hosted a White House citizen town hall that featured three face-to-face questions. The lucky three? One was a member of HCAN, a second was a worker for the Virginia Organizing Project (which coordinates trips and forums with HCAN), and the third was a woman from SEIU. If they’re green and leafy, they must be plants, eh?

And these people like to call themselves “grassroots.” The more proper term (coined by democrat Lloyd Bensen of Texas in 1985) is “Astroturf.”

~~~

Much of the preceding information was gathered from Discover The Networks – a website that has the most comprehensive gathering of information imaginable about people and organizations that promote liberal causes. Here’s the link: DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

Some additional information is from: http://www.basicsproject.org/american_fifth_column/organizations_agencies/organizations_agencies.htm

http://www.seiu.org/

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/04/obamacare-the-grassroots-are-always-greener/

If there’s one quick way to ruin an otherwise positive disposition, it’s reading about the groups, activities, methods, and goals of the left.

While working on the fourth installment of “Connecting the Dots,” I found that I needed to lighten up. Rummaging through my archives of funny stuff, I found a few bits that overcame (at least temporarily), the funk of morose unpleasantness orbiting around me and I laughed. Hallelujah! I’m born again!

See if these few lighthearted moments don’t improve your disposition – at least for a while.

And thanks to Mrs. AL for her contribution (you’ll have to guess which one it is).

 The Epstein Fart

Dr. Epstein was a renowned physician who earned his undergraduate, graduate, and medical degrees in his home town. He then moved to Manhattan, where he quickly rose to the top of his field.

 Soon he was invited to deliver a significant paper at a conference being held in his home town. Proudly, he walked on stage and placed his papers on the lectern, but they slid off onto the floor. As he bent over to retrieve them, at precisely the wrong instant, he let a loud fart escape.

The microphone amplified his flatulent explosion. It reverberated throughout the room and out into the hall. He was quite embarrassed, but somehow he regained his composure just enough to finish delivering his paper. He ignored their resounding applause and raced out the stage door, determined never to be seen in his home town again.

Decades later, when his elderly mother was ill, he returned to visit her. He reserved a hotel room under the name of Levy and arrived under cover of darkness.

 
The desk clerk asked him, "Is this your first visit to our city, Mr. Levy?"

Dr. Epstein replied, "Well, young man, no, it isn't. I grew up here and received my education here, but then I moved away."

Why haven't you visited?" asked the desk clerk.

"Actually, I did visit once, many years ago, but an embarrassing thing happened and since then I've been too ashamed to return."

The clerk consoled him. "Sir, while I don't have your life experience, one thing that I’ve learned is that often what seems embarrassing to me often isn’t even remembered by others. I’ll bet that’s true of your incident too.”

Dr. Epstein replied, "Son, I doubt that's the case with my incident."

"Was it a long time ago?"

"Yes, many years ago."

…

…

The clerk asked, "Was it before or after the Epstein Fart?"

~~~

Playing With Words

Here are the top dogs from an old Washington Post's Mensa Invitational, which again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.

The 2006 winners were:

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying (or building) a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

2. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an a**hole.

3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize that it was your money to start with.

4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

10. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.

11. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

12. Karmageddon: It's when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, and then the Earth explodes and it's a serious bummer.

13. Decafalon: (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

14. Glibido: All talk and no action.

15. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly. (sound familiar?)

16. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.

17. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

18. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.

~~~

The Bar Test

A fellow walks into a bar, and notices a very large jar on the counter, and sees that it's filled to the brim with $10 bills. He guesses there must be more than ten thousand dollars in it. He approaches the bartender and asks, 'What's with the money in the jar?'

'Well... you pay $10 and if you pass three tests, you get all the money and the keys to a brand new Lexus.'

The man certainly isn't going to pass this up. And so he asks, 'What are the three tests?'

'You must pay first...Those are the rules,' says the bartender.

So, after thinking it over a while, the man gives the bartender the $10 and the bartender drops it into the jar.

'Okay,' the bartender says, 'Here's what you need to do:

First - You have to drink a whole quart of tequila, in a minute or less, and you can't make a face while doing it.

Second - There's a pit bull chained in the back with a bad tooth. You have to remove that tooth with your bare hands.

Third - There's a 90-year old lady upstairs who has never had sex. You have to have sex with her!'

The man is stunned.  'I know I paid my $10, but I'm not an idiot! I won't do it! You'd have to be nuts to drink a quart of tequila, and then do all those other things.'

'Your call,' says the bartender. 'But, your money stays where it is.' 

As time goes on, and the man has a few more drinks, he finally says, 'Where's the damn tequila?'

He grabs the bottle with both hands and drinks it as fast as he can. Tears stream down both cheeks, but he doesn't make a face, and he did it in fifty-eight seconds!

Next, he staggers out the back door, where he sees the pit bull chained to a pole. Soon the people inside the bar hear growling, biting, and screaming sounds, then nothing but silence! 

Just when they think that the man surely must be dead, he staggers back into the bar, with his shirt ripped open and there are scratches and he's bleeding all over his body. 

He says, 'Now where's that old woman with the bad tooth?'

The moral to the story: Listen carefully to the directions, and don't trust your judgment when alcohol is involved!

~~~

This following one is NOT a joke, it acknowledges that our geezer vets are one of most potent weapons in America’s arsenal.

Vets over 60!

I am over 60 and the Armed Forces thinks I'm too old to track down terrorists. You can't be older than 42 to join the military.

They've got the whole thing backwards. Instead of sending 18-year olds off to fight, they ought to take us old guys. You shouldn't be able to join a military unit until you're at least 35.

For starters: Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10 seconds.

Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.

Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. 'My back hurts! I can't sleep, I'm tired and hungry' We are impatient and maybe letting us kill some a**hole that desperately deserves it will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.

An 18-year-old doesn't even like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee. Besides, like I said, 'I'm tired and can't sleep and since I'm already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical person.

If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real stretch.

Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we're used to soft food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using them for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from the screaming and yelling.

They could lighten up on the obstacle course however. I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training.

Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy, too. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.

An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a pretty girl. He still hasn't figured out that a baseball cap has a brim to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.

These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them off into harm's way.

Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten coward terrorists. The last thing an enemy would want to see is a couple of million mad old farts with attitudes and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.

When did we stop being “We the People” and become “we the pawns”? Or maybe it should be “we the patsies,” or “we the marks”?

We (the People) elect 536 representatives to conduct the business of our United States, 435 members of the House, 100 Senators, and a President. They represent us, the 300,000,000 citizens of America.

We hired them – they’re supposed to work for us. Shouldn’t they answer to us when things go wrong? Looked at your 401(k) lately? What about the value of your home? Laid off or out of a job?

Aren’t things wrong enough now to take action?

The OMB recently revised the deficit figure, which now is expected to surpass $1,800,000,000,000 (that’s TRILLIONS, friends and neighbors). How’d we get here? Did YOU screw something up? Or was it ME? Nope, not even Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They didn’t do it … our own representatives did it.

Isn’t it high time that we review the job performance of our representatives? From Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid on down to the rookies in Congress. It is time to objectively assess the job they’ve done. Remember 2006 when the democrats were swept into a majority in Congress?

“The days of the do-nothing Congress are over,” declared Democrat Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, adding that Americans spoke “clearly and decisively in favor of Democrats leading this country in a new direction.”

Well, Harry was right about one thing – the democrats have been anything but “do nothing.” The problem is, a few more years of their “new direction” will turn the United States into a Socialist state and bankrupt it at the same time.

On election day, November, 2008, only 17%of poll respondents approved of Congress’ job, 74% disapproved. That was TWO YEARS after Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al were given their opportunity to make things better. They didn’t – practically everything they did has made life in America more difficult.

Now, after the public opted to give them yet another chance in 2009, the approval numbers are falling again. Now, only 30% approve of the job being done by congress and 60% disapprove. This only points out that it’s time that we the people ask questions of our representatives. For example:

Have you noticed that every election, the politicians tell us that they are going to pay for [fill in blank] by correcting inefficiencies in the [fill in blank] system. Have they EVER made ANYTHING more efficient? Have any cost savings EVER resulted? We need to ignore any “anticipated cost savings” in ANYTHING they propose – it ain’t gonna happen.

If both Democrats and Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits amounting to $1.8 Trillion dollars?

Have you ever wondered, if all of the politicians are against high taxes, WHY do we have high taxes now, with even higher taxes to come?

You and I don’t have the authority to vote on appropriations and spending, the House of Representatives does.

We don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

We don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t propose a federal budget, the President does.

Why does Congress exempt themselves from legislation that affects other citizens? The “healthcare” bill is a perfect example. If the healthcare that you’re pushing on us is good enough for the rest of the country, then By God, it is good enough for Congress.

Who is to blame for the $787,000,000,000 “economic stimulus” bill that isn’t working. THEM is to blame, US will pay for it. What about the “Cap and Trade” bill? And have you heard about the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009?” Does it sound like Congress is spending OUR money wisely?

What kind of ‘bang” are we getting for our buck – our taxes? How can Congress expect we the people to sit idly by and accept spending BILLIONS of OUR money without even reading the bill specifying how OUR money will be spent?

If congresspersons won’t read bills spending BILLIONS of OUR money, that is prima facie evidence of several things:

• They are NOT doing the job for which they were elected
• The bills are purposely too complex to understand
• The resultant laws will be too complex to work and unintended consequences will be rampant
• The complexity and excessive length of bills provide easy ways to hide pork spending and political payoffs from public scrutiny
• The complexity, length, and speed of passage of bills removes any chance for the public to know what congress is spending OUR money on
• We can no longer trust our representatives to HONESTLY tell us how and why they’re spending OUR money. Lies, misdirection and obfuscation have become tools of their trade for our representatives in Washington, DC.

Seems to me that those who are tasked with managing our federal government have been looking out for themselves and their political party – not for we the people. Reelection, retaining power is their raison d'être. They have not taken seriously their responsibility to be careful stewards of OUR funds.

We cannot allow this political ponzi scheme to continue. How many times have our “representatives” sold us on a plan that will benefit us today but will be paid for by our children? Plans that are supposed to fix the problems INITIALLY CREATED by those same 536 “representatives”? We are being played for fools. We have become patsies and marks. We have been hustled. But even worse, our children and grandchildren are being saddled with an unmanageable level of debt and an increasingly shrinking level of freedom. Is this the legacy that we want to leave our children?

We have a great deal of history on many of our members of Congress. For a lot of them, it’s the only job they’ve ever held. Eighty-seven members of congress have been in their job for over twenty years. These are the very individuals who bear the most responsibility for the nation’s woes. They’re in a position to control legislation; they hold leadership positions in Congress. The majority of them couldn’t manage a donut store. How’s their “leadership” working out for us?

“With a median net worth of $746,000, most members of Congress have a comfortable financial cushion to ride out any recession,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which conducted a study on congressional pay. The 535 members of Congress, who earn average annual salaries of $169,000 (now $174,000), had a total net worth of $3.7 billion in 2007. Their average net worth soared by 61 percent from 2004 to 2007. DID YOURS? Median net worth for senators was $1.7 million. "Obama ranked as one of the biggest financial winners, with his net worth increasing from $800,000 in 2006 to $4.7 million in 2007, thanks mainly to royalties from his two best-selling books.

The point is, these people that we elect are given positions of power; most of them live a life of privilege and most of them become wealthy. They have lost touch with ordinary Americans and the things that affect our everyday life. They are “the elite” and they act like it.

And what are we receiving in return for their pampering? Scorn and deceit.

Their fingerprints and DNA are all over the failed policies, the excessive spending, the political payoffs to campaign contributors, etc. They have PROVEN that they cannot or will not be efficient managers of OUR MONEY. Are we the people stupid enough to let this rush to oblivion continue without abatement? Are we supposed to wait until recovery is impossible?

The status quo is simply strangling our country. We need a transfusion – a transfusion of new representation. Please note that my solution is not a partisan one. Regardless of political party, most have proven that they cannot be trusted with OUR money.

It is time to … THROW THE BUMS OUT.