Friday, August 28, 2009

Kennedy Joked About Chappaquidick?

A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."- Bertrand de Jouvenal

There was nothing noble about the "Lion" of the Senate and that description is fitting only in the sense that he was a predator. His decades of service was not to our benefit, he merely enjoyed the protection as a member of "Camelot." For, it was this perverse addiction we have with darlings of the media and false gods that we are told to worship that this lion was able to avoid the scorn he so rightfully deserved.

Even describing Ted Kennedy's private response to his crimes at Chappaquiddick is done so with adoration, in a word.... disgusting.

Ed Klein, close Kennedy friend and former Newsweek editor interviewed on the Diane Rehm show:

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Obama Reinstates End of Life Manual for Veterans

In a country that enjoys advancements in technology and extremely qualified doctors, our heroic veterans must navigate through a woefully inadequate federal healthcare system.

In 1997, the VA had a 52-page end-of-life manual, "Your Life, Your Choices." This planning manual appeared to assist our vets in preparing a living will. It became clear to the Bush administration that it was being utilized for nefarious reasons and its use was suspended. The Obama administration reinstated the end of life manual.


Saturday, August 22, 2009

Barney Frank Challenged at Town Hall Meeting by LaRouche Democrat

By Tony Vega

Most of us are aware of the controversy surrounding the recent town hall meetings where various representatives show up to discuss healthcare reform. The Democrats did not anticipate the passionate rejection of Obamacare. The American people were not buying.

President Obama, a great campaigner and orator as long as the teleprompter is working, appeared before us and could not quite sell it either. Barack Obama the campaigner just met Barack Obama the President.

What did our illustrious leaders do? They started a smear campaign against the American people. Nancy Pelosi and her minions began to claim that the grassroots effort of the people were instead Astroturf; a cool way of saying the backlash is contrived.

Barney Frank appeared courageous if not justified by telling a woman at a recent Massachusetts town hall meeting, “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.” This was in response to the woman asking Frank, "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy?"

The Nazi policy was a reference to Obamacare. The woman was also holding an image of Obama wearing a Hitler moustache.

They (Obama, Pelosi, Barney Frank, MSNBC, et al) want to mislead us into believing our neighbors and our senior citizens are not concerned. They float out the notion that we are being fed myths and lies by FOX and Tea Party organizers. They want the nation to believe that it is angry hordes of conservatives showing up at town hall meetings with Hitlerized posters of Obama.

What they are not telling you is:

  • The woman at Barney Frank's town hall meeting is not a Conservative. She is a LaRouche Democrat. More here and More on the LaRouche movement here
CNN Video of the Town Hall Meeting:

Expanded Video Woman Mentions LaRouche:

  • Bus loads of paid operatives from ACORN, SEIU, HCAN, and others are showing up chanting pro-Obama ditties, promoting Obamacare, and allowed entry into town hall meetings while those with a dissenting point of view are barred from entry; a clear example of astroturfing.

  • George Soros is pledging millions to bankroll and promote Obamacare; Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is set to receive 5-million dollars from Soros. Huffpo
Folks, don't listen to me. For the sake of this union, turn the pages yourselves. Regardless, if you agree with that LaRouche woman or not, the point is the MSM is corrupt and complicit. The media has a vested interest in the success of their American Idol.

Obama supporters, Barney Frank supporters worry not, for the antidote to the tainted kool-aid is the truth.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Creator of Obama Joker Image Unmasked

... and Is "Socialist" the New N-Word?

Firas Alkhateeb, LA Times/The Ticket

By Tony Vega

The LA Times reported that Firas Alkhateeb, a 20-year old Chicago, Illinois University student created the now (in) famous Joker image of Barack Obama. Alkhateeb, bored during a winter recess began tinkering with the popular Photoshop software and Jokerized an image of the president's face. Alkhateeb posted the image on Flickr, a photo-sharing site.

Ironically, the White House utilizes Flickr as a hosting site for its official images, which are available for public use. Alkhateeb, used the October 23, 2006 cover of Times magazine, which featured then Senator Barack Obama, as the template for his Joker image.

An unknown visitor to Flickr modified the image by eliminating the Time magazine graphics and added the caption, "Socialism." Copies of the new version were plastered around L.A., becoming a springboard for liberal pundits to jump all over the opposition.

The LA Weekly, which depicted George Bush as Dracula on its cover in 2004, denounced the Obama-Joker image. The incensed LA Weekly writer even added, "The only thing missing is a noose." The writer further blasted Conservatives and the FOX news network.

Many on the left including those caught up in the racial divide, unsuspectingly furthered by President Obama's rhetoric, are fanning the flames. Flames stirred by race-arsonists, hyperbolic pundits and the Pelosi team.

Some are claiming that the term "Socialism" if applied to Barack Obama is now a code word for the “N-word.” Normal discourse is now degenerating into a race war. How did our capacity to reason become so easily hijacked? What happened to the hope of unity?

It was expected (falsely?) that unity might be attained if not further sustained by the nation's first black president. It is ironic if not sad that the chasm of the racial divide is deepened mainly by the Obama supporters, if not the president himself.

These allegations of racism, being hurled around quicker than a drunken fist, are not honest attempts at exposing bigotry. Instead, it is an ugly attempt to win an argument by scaring your opponent into silence. The most demonizing label outside of a pedophile is a racist. If a person wishing to maintain a public presence is successfully maligned, his or her voice will be effectively silenced.

In a MSNBC segment called the C-Note, host Carlos Watson offered, "whether or not 'socialist' is becoming the new N-word for frankly... for some angry upset birthers and others."

During a recent FOX episode, Sean Hannity and Frank Luntz hosted a town hall styled gathering. An attendee mirrored that MSNBC sentiment and stated, "words like 'un-American,' 'socialism,' that you use, Sean, I think it's really code word for it's the new N-word."

The dangerous result of such dramatic recklessness is the boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome and when actual racism rears its ugly head, we may all be blind to it...except the victim of course.

The double standard also extends to how we treat the person(s) leveling false accusations of racism. Where is the same level of consternation when the race card is illegitimately thrown around by the left and even the president? Folks, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Firas Alkhateeb claims he was making no political statement with his artwork. Alkhateeb, born in the United States says his Palestinian family closely follows Middle Eastern politics. He opined that Barack Obama is doing a better job than Bush and admitted fear of having a perceived anti-Obama stance in Chicago.

Mr. Alkhateeb did not vote and stated Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich would be his choice.

It should be an interesting analysis by MSNBC and the boy-who-cried-wolf crowd regarding the racial and political component of the Obama-Joker image since the creator of it has been unmasked. If we are going to have a conversation about race, or anything for that matter, let it be an honest one.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

AARP Pulls the Plug on Obamacare

... or does it?

White House photo by Peter Souza

By Tony Vega

AARP has clearly expressed the need for healthcare reform. Many Americans agree that there is room for improvement in our current healthcare system. Many of us are either directly affected or know someone that is affected by inadequate insurance.

Health is directly related to happiness, life and death. The prospect of not receiving adequate healthcare is a scary notion and to some a reality. Politicians thrive on such fears and exploit the same.

Our healthcare should not be determined by political ideology. A wise man once told me the difference between the way things are and the way they should be would drive a sensitive person crazy.

AARP's position appears to be dubious if not duplicitous; one thing for sure is it's confusing as is the president's 1,017-page manifesto. AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, is currently a large player in the insurance industry.

In 2008, AARP was added to the Medicare Advantage plan, which is privately run insurance subsidized by the government. The government reimburses Medicare Advantage at a higher rate, an average of 12 percent, than it does Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program. [1]

In July, AARP organized a town hall meeting in order for the president to pitch his plan from a friendly platform. AARP does not have a PAC and can posit itself as non-partisan. However, Barry Rand the CEO of AARP donated $8,900 to Obama and even more to the Democrats. [2]

If anyone is half paying attention it is obvious that AARP is a left oriented organization and as a major player in the insurance game stands to make some serious coin with an Obama health plan.

Barack Obama was confident he had AARP's support. So confident that during an August 11, New Hampshire town hall meeting he strolled out and boldly proclaimed, "we have the AARP onboard because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare."

AARP immediately responded by stating, "indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate." To claim that your ally is “inaccurate” about your alliance is strong language to say the least and indicates a clear dysfunction of the plan.

So what happened? We happened folks and despite the disparaging remarks by Pelosi and her clowns, the American people appropriately responded to Obamacare.

Dissension is the hallmark of Freedom, not just when liberals dissent, but when every American has a right to express their voice. The people are rejecting Obamacare, which should not be confused with adequate healthcare.

Customers ripped up their membership cards in response to AARP's perceived endorsement of Obamacare. The customers’ response resounded effectively and as a result, AARP pulled the plug on its support of Obama's plan. Money know the rest.

The power of competition and choice is displayed in a recent CBS report. Since July, 60,000 AARP members cancelled their membership and many defected to the American Seniors Association.

AARP is also scrambling for damage control, damage caused by their out of touch representatives at a Texas town hall meeting. AARP turned their back on the folks, pulled the plug on the microphone and left the building.

Barack Obama is in a wonderful position to rescue healthcare and emerge as a hero, all he has to do is start listening to the folks. Healthcare is an important issue that past administrations did not adequately address. The Obama administration can truly change America, for the better.





Sunday, August 9, 2009

Wise Latina Sotomayor Sworn In As First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice

Sonia Sotomayor and Barack Obama/Peter Souza,White House

By Tony Vega

Sonia Sotomayor was sworn-in on Saturday, August 08, 2009 as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. On September 08, she will be "invested as a member of the Court" in a special session of the Supreme Court. The swearing-in on Saturday by Chief Justice John Roberts allows her to prepare as an Associate Justice.

Sonia Sotomayor is the 111th Supreme Court justice, the first Latina and third woman in the 220-year SCOTUS history. Folks, history is on a roll. Forgive me if I don't get all warm and fuzzy here, but making history simply for history's sake does not by default mean it will be positive; remember not all history is good history.

At approximately 1100 hours, Chief Justice Roberts administered two oaths to Sonia Sotomayor. The first oath was a more private one and standard for all federal employees, who swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The second oath is the judicial oath and took place in the court’s East Conference Room, where cameras were allowed to record the event. That oath under the Constitution and laws of the United States is where Sotomayor swore to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me.

All Freedom loving Patriots will hope that Justice Sotomayor will adhere to her oaths and has grown from the folly of her judicial activism and rhetoric displaying a degree of racial animus.

In addition to the controversy of her suggestion that a wise Latina would make better decisions than a white man, Sotomayor's more famous, or rather infamous, decision as an appellate court justice was her ruling against The New Haven 20.

In 2005, while addressing student law clerks Sotomayor revealed her judicial activism by saying, "court of appeals is where policy is made." She then immediately added, "And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. O.K. I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm — you know."

Brace yourselves; Barack Obama may conceivably make three or more Supreme Court appointments during his first term. If Obama's brief history is any indication, we know he has a penchant for the radical.

Sonia Sotomayor replaced the retiring David Souter. In addition to Souter, Justices Ginsberg, 76, and Stevens, 89 may retire.

This year, making history is chic right long with American Idol and fawning over morally corrupt celebrities. Politics is certainly not an area where one will find moral fortitude, however, it is disappointing when a SCOTUS appointment is confirmed via political expedience over what is best for the nation.

Republican Senators facing reelection know that their constituents will expect them to honor their base and the principle of country first. All 12 Republican Senators facing reelection voted against Sotomayor.

With the Democrats in power, Sotomayor was easily confirmed by sixty-eight Senators to thirty-one. 57:58 Democrats voted yes, while Sen. Kennedy suffering from cancer did not vote. Sen. Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut, both Independents that caucus with the Democrats voted for confirmation.

The following are the nine Republicans that voted to confirm:
Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Sen. Christopher Bond (Mo.)
Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)
Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.)
Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)

For the complete Senate roll call visit here.


Senate Roll Call for the Sotomayor Confirmation

The following is the roll call by which the Senate confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS on a 68 to 31 vote:

Democrats Yes:

Akaka (Hawaii); Baucus (Mont.); Bayh (Ind.); Begich (Alaska); Bennet (Colo.); Bingaman (N.M.); Boxer (Calif.); Brown (Ohio); Burris (Ill.); Byrd (W.Va.); Cantwell (Wash.); Cardin (Md.); Carper (Del.); Casey (Pa.); Conrad (N.D.); Dodd (Conn.); Dorgan (N.D.); Durbin (Ill.); Feingold (Wis.); Feinstein (Calif.); Franken (Minn.); Gillibrand (N.Y.); Hagan (N.C.); Harkin (Iowa); Inouye (Hawaii); Johnson (S.D.); Kaufman (Del.); Kerry (Mass.); Klobuchar (Minn.); Kohl (Wis.); Landrieu (La.); Lautenberg (N.J.); Leahy (Vt.); Levin (Mich.); Lincoln (Ark.); McCaskill (Mo.); Menendez (N.J.); Merkley (Ore.); Mikulski (Md.); Murray (Wash.); Nelson (Fla.); Nelson (Neb.); Pryor (Ark.); Reed (R.I.); Reid (Nev.); Rockefeller (W.Va.); Schumer (N.Y.); Shaheen (N.H.); Specter (Pa.); Stabenow (Mich.); Tester (Mont.); Udall (Colo.); Udall (N.M.); Warner (Va.); Webb (Va.); Whitehouse (R.I.); Wyden (Ore.)

Democrats Not Voting: Kennedy (Mass.)

Independents (caucusing with Democrats) Yes: Lieberman (Conn.); Sanders (Vt.)

Republicans No:

Barrasso (Wyo.); Bennett (Utah); Brownback (Kan.); Bunning (Ky.); Burr (N.C.); Chambliss (Ga.); Coburn (Okla.); Cochran (Miss.); Corker (Tenn.); Cornyn (Tex.); Crapo (Idaho); DeMint (S.C.); Ensign (Nev.); Enzi (Wyo.); Grassley (Iowa); Hatch (Utah); Hutchison (Tex.); Inhofe (Okla.); Isakson (Ga.); Johanns (Neb.); Kyl (Ariz.); McCain (Ariz.); McConnell (Ky.); Murkowski (Alaska); Risch (Idaho); Roberts (Kan.); Sessions (Ala.); Shelby (Ala.); Thune (S.D.); Vitter (La.); Wicker (Miss.)

Republicans Yes:

Alexander (Tenn.); Bond (Mo.); Collins (Maine); Graham (S.C.); Gregg (N.H.); Lugar (Ind.); Martinez (Fla.); Snowe (Maine); Voinovich (Ohio)

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Cash for Clunkers Drives Head On Into Freedom

By Tony Vega

Remember that cool new government program that promised 3,500 - 4,500 bucks for your old gas-guzzler to be used for the purchase or lease of a new vehicle? That program, Cash for Clunkers, sank quicker than...well... an Oldsmobile in the Chappaquiddick.

On the surface, this seems like a pretty good idea. An incentive to buy, stimulate the economy, and even help the environment by getting rid of old clunkers for more fuel-efficient cars. You better get Maaco baby, because the rusty truth is showing up big time.

Let's take a look at this government-induced boondoggle.

There had been a $1 billion budget for rebates for new car sales in the program. It went bankrupt after the first week. In addition to a failed government plan, the flawed economics is simply this, we are subsidizing taxpayers with taxpayer money. That is not going to help our (USA's) net worth.

OK, so what, it's our money, why should the fat cats benefit and not us? The simplicity and emotions behind that is what drove so many folks to the car dealer. I am not saying you should have stayed home. But don't candy-apple coat it folks, you are going down to get a piece of a new welfare program paid for by the taxpayer.

Additionally, there is something fundamentally wrong with destroying vehicles that are still viable while increasing more debt. This will not earn us any A-pluses in economics-101. Whatever, get while the getting is good.

As per the government, "the program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle, and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in."-

The Wall Street Journal summed it up this way, "By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years."

This program very well may be a shot in the arm, almost like a hit on the ol' turbo boost, it will get you there fast, but in the long run it will cost you more money and make you run out of gas quicker; yeah I know, but the ride was fun.

Secondly, the bankruptcy of this program should sound off like an old-fashioned Mac truck air horn. How on God's green earth, pardon me, let me re-phrase that for my more PC readers; how on this spontaneously combusted green earth can you expect this government to run health care or crap & trade, when they can't even manage to run Cash for Clunkers?

Lastly, certainly not least, in fact the most important aspect of this failed policy is how the government is driving this program head on into Freedom. This Cash for Clunkers program has a dangerous stipulation when you or the car dealer logs onto the government's web site.

That stipulation was publicized by Glenn Beck and below is the video explaining it. I implore you to check it out and afterward reflect on all those complaints about the Patriot Act.

The feds tell us, "Consumers should expect that all information collected through the CARS Program will be kept confidential. Social Security numbers are not required for a CARS transaction." - BUT, what they are not telling you is this:

"This application provides to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, YOUR COMPUTER is considered a FEDERAL COMPUTER SYSTEM AND IT IS PROPERTY OF THE United States Government, any and all uses of this system and ALL FILES on this system may be INTERCEPTED, MONITORED, RECORDED, COPIED, AUDITED, INSPECTED, and DISCLOSED to authorized CARS, DoT and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, BOTH DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN." (Emphasis my own)

The House just approved $2B more for Cash for Clunkers. Oh, I forgot it is the program formerly known as Cash for Clunkers. Yes, the Obamacracy as with many pop icons changed its name; it is now officially dubbed the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS).