Bush Bikes With Seriously Injured Veterans

Now this is what I call class in a former President:

Former President George W. Bush is hosting a 100-kilometer mountain bike ride in the Panhandle’s Palo Duro Canyon State Park for military members wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The three-day ride begins Thursday. This is the second year for Bush to host the Warrior 100K. Last year, the ride was held in the Big Bend region of West Texas.

In a statement, Bush says the ride is a reminder of the “unbelievable courage, skill and sacrifice of those who wear the uniform of the United States.”

Obama Trying To Make Romney Into Bush

More desperation from the White House:

President Obama and his surrogates are making repeated references to the economic policies of former President George W. Bush, seeking to tie Mitt Romney’s platform to that of the previous administration.

George Who?

Newsbusters asks:

If a 64-year-old former U.S. president rode 100 kilometers in the desert with more than a dozen wounded military veterans to raise awareness of and money for veterans charities, would it make headlines?

The answer is–with the notable exception of ABC News–not if the former president’s last name is Bush.

From April 25-27^th, President George W. Bush will host the Warrior 100 (W100), a 100-kilmometer mountain bike ride in the Big Bend with fourteen United States servicemen and women who were seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“I’ll be riding across the deserts of Texas with wounded warriors to show the unbelievable character of our men and women in uniform,” said President Bush. “It’s a 100-kilometer ride in the desert, and it’s not a leisurely ride; it’s a ride to herald people who were dealt a severe blow and said, ‘I’m not going to let it tear me down.’”

Imagine if the former president’s name had been, say, Carter, or Clinton, or Obama.

Congrats to President Bush for doing this… and to all those who rode along with him!

H/T Roman Words

Why Ethanol Won’t Work

It’s as simple as this (emphasis added):

To turn wood chips into ethanol fuel, George W. Bush’s Department of Energy in February 2007 announced a $76 million grant to Range Fuels for a cutting-edge refinery. A few months later, the refinery opened in the piney woods of Treutlen County, Ga., as the taxpayers of Georgia piled on another $6 million. In 2008, the ethanol plant was the first beneficiary of the Biorefinery Assistance Program, pocketing a loan for $80 million guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayers.

Last month, the refinery closed down, having failed to squeeze even a drop of ethanol out of its pine chips.

Ethanol is basically one huge boondoggle. Not only does it have less energy for the same quantity as gasoline, but it also uses food crops, thereby driving up the cost of food, as reported by sources as diverse as the Washington Times and NPR.

But the Obama Administration seems bound and determined to follow this bad Bush policy. I don’t mind it when Obama follows good Bush policies, but he’s got enough bad policies of his own without borrowing Dubya’s (and, yes, Dubya did have some really boneheaded policies… like subsidizing ethanol).

Cheney: Obama Learned Bush Was Right

The Hill:

President Obama has “learned from experience” that some of the Bush administration’s decisions on terrorism issues were necessary, according to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

[…]

“I think he’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he’s learned from experience. And part of that experience was the Democrats having a terrible showing last election.”

Cheney also asserted that Obama has learned that the prison at Guantanamo Bay simply cannot be closed, despite the promises he made while campaigning for the White House.

“I think he’s learned that he’s not going to be able to close Guantanamo,” Cheney said. “That it’s — if you didn’t have it, you’d have to create one like that. You’ve got to have some place to put terrorists who are combatants who are bound and determined to try to kill Americans.”

[…]

The former vice president cited the Obama administration’s expanded use of drones in Pakistan as more evidence of continuity from the policies of the Bush White House.

“As I say, I think he’s found it necessary to be more sympathetic to the kinds of things we did,” Cheney said. “They’ve gotten active, for example, with the drone program, using Predator and the Reaper to launch strikes against identified terrorist targets in the various places in the world.”

As in so many things in the past, Mr. Cheney is absolutely right. President Obama has indeed followed many of the Bush policies that Senator Obama and Candidate Obama denounced.

Things look a lot different once you start getting the presidential briefings, don’t they, Mr. Obama?

Giving credit where credit is due, Obama is perfectly correct to continue these Bush-era policies, because while they may not be perfect, they’re the best we’re going to get in the imperfect world we live in. Two cheers to Obama for realizing this and not messing things up.

Of course, the conservative in me also relishes the fact that following these Bush-era policies might just drive a wedge between Obama and the lefties, especially if Obama continues to move to the right in an attempt to follow the Clinton-Morris “triangulation” strategy. That wedge, if it happens–and there have been some hints, tho nothing really solid yet–would make it much easier for the GOP to unseat Obama in 2012.

Mark Halperin And The Desire For A Catastrophe

Byron York has a piece up about Mark Halperin of Time wishing for a catastrophe to help boost Obama’s popularity:

What Obama really needs, Halperin says, is a stroke of good luck. “Busy as he’s been, he has not yet experienced a single major moment that has benefited him politically,” Halperin writes.  Events like the Gulf oil spill have been harmful, rather than helpful. So what would brighten Obama’s political prospects?  Here’s Halperin:

“No one wants the country to suffer another catastrophe. But when a struggling Bill Clinton was faced with the Oklahoma City bombing and a floundering George W. Bush was confronted by 9/11, they found their voices and a route to political revival.”

Of course, the Oklahoma City attack killed 168 people, and September 11 nearly 3,000.  So Halperin quickly adds: “Perhaps Obama’s crucible can be positive — the capture of Osama bin Laden, the fall of the Iranian regime, a dramatic technological innovation that revitalizes American manufacturing — something to reintroduce him to the American people and show the strengths he demonstrated as a presidential candidate.”

Maybe a bin Laden capture or Iranian revolution would help, although it seems highly unlikely that a dramatic technological innovation would revitalize American manufacturing in time for Obama to be re-elected in 2012.  But the fact is, presidents have often shown their true mettle in the face of tragic circumstances.  And Obama’s partisans appear to be coming very close to hoping for a tragedy to revive the president’s political fortunes.

I think Halperin has it wrong. Clinton and Bush gained the support of the people because they were the kind of men who could really connect with the American people after a tragedy, in an emotional way. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, he did have that capability, in spades.

However, Obama is definitely cut from a different cloth… even his supporters admit that his demeanor is more cool and detached.

The way Obama connects to people is the opposite of a Clinton, a Bush, or a Ronald Reagan. Those presidents were all relaters. They bonded with people based on common feelings, experiences, and interests. Reagan did this best through the medium of television. Bush did it best in person and not so well through television. Clinton could do it blindfolded and hanging upside down. But for all three, connecting emotionally was part and parcel of their political skill. As a result, people tended to love them or hate them, sometimes in succession, but without much neutral ground in between.

Obama’s coolness and detachment put him in a different category of president that includes Lincoln (on the positive side) and Jimmy Carter (on the negative). His relationship with the world is primarily rational and analytical rather than intuitive or emotional. As he acknowledged in his interview with George Stephanopoulos the day after Scott Brown’s victory, his tendency to focus on substance can make him seem remote and technocratic. So while many people continue to deeply admire him, few come away from any encounter feeling closer to him. He is not warm, he is not loyal, he is not deeply involved with others. His most fervent enthusiasts tend to express love for the ideas he embodies and represents—America transcending its racial history, a fairer and more unified society, rationality, wise decision-making, and so forth—as opposed to for the man himself.

Most of us over a certain age can remember Carter’s “catastrophe,” and the aftermath thereof… Americans held hostage in Iran for 444 days (that’s over a year for the mathematically challenged). Carter’s response to it, specifically “Operation Eagle Claw” which led to the loss of two American aircraft, eight American servicemen, and one Iranian civilian, is not quite so memorable, but undoubtedly was remembered when people went to the polls about 7 months later in November, 1980. It’s quite possible that had Carter handled the hostage crisis better, he might have fared better against Reagan and been granted a second term. As it was, however, it certainly seems that the failures that led to the hostage crisis and the inability to pull off a rescue helped doom Carter’s reelection bid.

So, Halperin’s error is in focusing on the catastrophe, and not the response to it. Both Clinton and Bush approached the problems in a presidential manner, and yes, they received a political benefit to it, as crass as that sounds. Obama, however, faced with a catastrophe, would probably react much more in the Carter mold, and therefore wouldn’t necessarily gain any benefit, and might even hurt his standing.

Mr. Halperin should be very careful what he wishes for.

Thin-Skinned Obama Bans British Teen From USA For Life

Fox News:

A British teenager who sent an e-mail to the White House calling President Obama a “pr*ck” was banned from the U.S. for life, The Sun reported Monday.

The FBI asked local cops to tell college student Luke Angel, 17, that his drunken insult was “unacceptable.”

Angel claims he fired off a single e-mail criticizing the U.S. government after seeing a television program about the 9/11 attacks.

He said, “I don’t remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a pr*ck. It was silly — the sort of thing you do when you’re a teenager and have had a few.”

Angel, of Bedford, in central England, said it was “a bit extreme” for the FBI to act.

“The police came and took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don’t really care but my parents aren’t very happy,” he said.

In the first place, while I have no problem with keeping the President (regardless of party) safe from threats, I doubt that calling him a “pr*ck” ranks up there on the danger scale.

For comparison, imagine if Dubya had banned everyone who called him a name… first, how many would have to be banned, and second, how would the lefties have reacted?

I guess Dubya has a thicker skin than Obama… but then, we knew that already, didn’t we?

Iraq, Like the Economy, May Soon Turn Sour On Obama

President Obama, 31 August 2010:

“Our combat mission is ending,” he said, “but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.”

Baghdad, 5 September 2010:

Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq’s ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens.

It was the first exchange of fire involving U.S. troops in Baghdad since the Aug. 31 deadline for formally ending the combat mission, and it showed that American troops remaining in the country are still being drawn into the fighting.

The attack also made plain the kind of lapses in security that have left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown and distrustful of the ability of Iraqi forces now taking up ultimate responsibility for protecting the country.

And the money paragraph, buried–predictably–at the bottom by the AP:

Iraq’s political instability now appears to be threatening the country’s security. Six months after an inconclusive election, Iraq still has no new government. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, is struggling to keep his job after his political coalition came in a close second to a Sunni-backed alliance in the March 7 vote.

Like the economy, the situation in Iraq that President Bush handed to President Obama did have its share of problems. However, Obama appears to have–again, like the economy–done his best to take a bad situation and make it worse.

If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, even possibly to civil war, it won’t be Bush that the history books blame… it will be Obama, who decided to yank troops out of a situation where they were probably one of the few things maintaining what little stability Iraq had.

Obama Whines… Like A Dog

CNN:

“Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” [President Obama] told a crowd largely consisting of union members.

The line was a rare departure from a president who normally sticks close to the text of his speech and may forecast a more aggressive tone on the part of Obama as the midterms approach.

Remember how kindly and graciously then-Senator Obama and others of his party and/or ideology treated President Bush?

Right. Neither do I.

As ye sow, Mr. Obama, so shall ye reap. Or, in a lingo perhaps more familiar to one trained in The Chicago Way of Politics: what goes around, comes around.

Obama Reveals His Hand On Reconciliation

While it was not acceptable to Obama during the G.W. Bush years, it is now just fine and dandy that statist Democrats use the reconciliation process to cram ObamaCare down our throats. He did not go out and say the word “reconciliation”, but he did utter the words “up-or-down vote”—code for reconciliation [Article – Healthcare reform: Obama nudges Congress toward reconciliation].

In the words of Senator Robert “Sheets” Byrd (D-WV):

I very rarely agree with Senator Byrd, but in this instance I have to say he is right.

When has reconciliation been used and under what circumstances?  Please refer to the following:

Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning Holding To His Guns

Ignoring both Democrats and fellow Republicans, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) is holding to his guns by preventing unemployment benefits extension from going through.  The reason?  Funding.  All that Senator Bunning wants is for funds from unspent stimulus to be used for the benefits extensions.

Statist Senate Democrats, left-wing media, and leftist bloggers are criticising Bunning for the stalling tactic.  Evil Republican Jim Bunning is denying the unemployed their benefits.  Perhaps they will blame Bunning for killing unemployed Americans?  Statists point to Bunning’s silence during the G.W. Bush years of defense spending and tax cuts, which supposedly added to the deficit [Article – 1. Top Democrats look to shame Bunning on unemployment benefits filibuster | 2. Unemployment benefits end today; extension not approved by Senate].

Here’s where the statists are wrong:

1. The Bush tax cuts increased government revenue.  How?  Employers could afford to hire more people to work.  The fewer people unemployed, the more that entitlements are reduced.  The more people who were working, the more tax base the government had.  The more tax base the government had, the more tax revenue that was collected.

2.  Defense spending is a necessary part of the federal budget.  The only part of the budget that is larger than defense spending is entitlement spending [Article – Entitlements Crowd Out Defense Spending, and It’s Only Getting Worse].  The statists who hate the military will never understand, nor recognize that fact.  This would also explain their ignorant comments on the defense budget.  They tried again and again over the years to defund our military out of existence.  Their disdain for the country’s servicemen and women is well-documented.  None of them can say they are patriotic Americans and that they support the troops while taking their funding away at the same time.  That is something two-faced liars do.

3.  The issue at hand is not dealing with defense spending or tax cuts.  The issue is how to pay for unemployment benefits.  The money for stimulus has already been allocated.  Why not use some of those funds for unemployment extensions?  This garbage about being against the rules should not be a problem for the current Congress and presidential administration, since they have consistently broken the rules over the past year anyway.

4.  Nobody would be talking about extending unemployment benefits if the Obama stimulus would have worked in the first place [Article – 1. Shrinking U.S. Labor Force Keeps Unemployment Rate From Rising | 2. Obama: Stimulus Has Saved 2 Million Jobs | 3. The ‘Stimulus’ Actually Raised Unemployment | 4. Fact Checking Team Obama’s Stimulus Claims].

5.  President Obama is a huge fan of a pay-as-you-go system.  From his own mouth:

And The Winner Is…President Barack Obama?!?!

I thought I hadn’t awakened from my sleep and was still dreaming when I heard that our most highly esteemed potentate and savior of the world, President Barack Hussein Obama, had won the Nobel Peace Prize [Article – Obama says he’ll accept Nobel as ‘call to action’].

President Obama was gracious in his acceptance speech. He had the same feeling of shock and surprise that millions upon millions of people experienced when it was announced that he had won the Nobel Peace Prize. He acknowledged that he was not deserving of the prize and didn’t view the award “as a recognition of my own accomplishments,” but rather as a recognition of goals he has set for the U.S. and the world. Mr. Obama said, “I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize.” But, he said, “I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.”

What accomplishments? Community organizing? Being a state senator? Performing the duties of a U.S. Senator for the sum total of two years? Talking about hope and change? By transformative figures, I am guessing that President Obama is excluding the late bloodthirsty terrorist Yasser Arafat. It should give us all a warm fuzzy that Obama is accepting the award as a “call to action”. You mean like giving the barbaric Taliban in Afghanistan a role in the government there [Article – Obama Focusing on al Qaeda, not Taliban]?

Obama: Iran Secretly Built Another Uranium Enrichment Facility

President Obama said that Iran has another uranium enrichment facility, which is in clear violation of U.N. resolutions [Article – 1. Iran Reveals Existence of Second Uranium Enrichment Plant | 2. Leaders React to Iran’s Nuclear Facility | 3. Iran’s key nuclear sites].

This is no revelation to those who have been researching and investigating Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran has been building up its nuclear program since 1974. The program was in stasis for a few years as a result of the 1979 revolution, but started back up in the 1990s.

The G.W. Bush administration had been ramping up pressure on Iran to cease enriching uranium for the express purpose of producing weapons. However, this was seen by state-run media and leftist politicians as a tactic to divert attention away from Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terror. Not surprisingly, their views on Iran have changed, since Obama became President.

What the present leaders of European nations and the United States fail to recognize is that Iran and other nations like it don’t play by the so-called rules. They don’t care about world opinion. They share the same goal, that being world domination, at any cost. There can be a million sanctions against Iran and it won’t stop them in their quest to destroy those who don’t share their world view or their fanatical ideological views [Article – Ahmadinejad: Iran ‘Will Never Negotiate’ Over Nuclear ‘Rights’].

I share the same sentiments as Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu in his most recent address to the U.N. General Assembly:

Obama European Missile Defense Decision: FAIL

President Obama’s announcement to scrap missile defense systems for Poland and the Czech Republic came on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland [Article – 1. EDITORIAL: Obama’s anniversary gift to Russia | 2. Obama not smooth on Gdansk | 3. Clinton: Not about Russia, but Iran 4. Russia’s Putin says U.S. shield decision positive].

History records:

On 17 September the Red Army crossed the Polish border in the east, in fulfilment of the secret agreement within the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and ended any prospect of Poland’s survival.

Historical reference: Invasion of Poland

The invasion, which was done in tandem with Nazi Germany, ushered in the most deadly and destructive war in world history. No other war before or after, has caused as much destruction of property and as many deaths as World War 2 did.

It shouldn’t be surprising to anybody that Obama, who is a product of those who taught leftist revisionist history, would be unaware of a moment in history that is indelibly marked in the hearts and minds of the Polish people. Another great moment in the annals of Obama foreign policy [Article – Barack Obama vows to ‘change the world’]. After all, part of his presidential campaign was run on repairing the world reputation of the United States:

President Obama Scraps Eastern European Missile Defense System

President Obama has decided to scrap the missile defense systems in eastern Europe [Article – 1. Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence | 2. Analysis: Shelving missile shield may coax Moscow to help curb Iranian nuclear ambitions]. The groundwork for the defense system was laid down by President George W. Bush in response to long-range nuclear missile threat, particularly in reference to possible future missile launches from Iran. The Obama decision pleases Russia and has invoked mixed feelings from people in Poland and the Czech Republic. It has been assessed that eastern Europe is not under any serious threat from a long-range missile attack [Article – 1. East Europe: Rancor, relief on missile shield plan | 2. U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans | 3. President Obama Retreats on Third-Site Missile Defenses].

Efforts will be concentrated on defending against short to medium-range missiles instead. It has been proposed that a more mobile, multi-homing defense system be implemented, rather than using ground-based missile defenses that do not have multi-homing capabilities.

Remember the words of Barack Obama, before he was elected as President:

For your reading pleasure:

Fish Cause Unemployment And Destroy Crops In California

Environut lunacy at work. Brought to you by the Wall Street Journal:

The 1973 Endangered Species Act requires that the government take steps to save endangered species. In California, that’s meant diverting vast sums of water into rivers and streams to protect fish. Those diversions this year have forced federal authorities to decide who to serve—fish or farmers.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the Bush administration’s Fish and Wildlife Service chose fish, a decision driven by a lawsuit filed in federal court in 2006 by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups. To settle the suit, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to divert more than 150 billion gallons of water this year away from farmers south of San Francisco in hopes of protecting the Delta smelt—a three-inch bait fish. The water is now flowing underneath the Golden Gate Bridge and out into the Pacific Ocean.

[Article – 1. It’s Fish Versus Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley | 2. In Central California, people should come before fish]

Video:

Obama Losing “Progressives”?

When you lose Paul Krugman, you’ve probably gone a long way to losing the so-called “progressives,” especially when he writes something like this:

According to news reports, the Obama administration — which seemed, over the weekend, to be backing away from the “public option” for health insurance — is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives. Well, I’m shocked and surprised at their shock and surprise. A backlash in the progressive base — which pushed President Obama over the top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general election victory — has been building for months. The fight over the public option involves real policy substance, but it’s also a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach.

[snip]

But there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line . . . It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled . . . So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

The amazing thing is that many conservatives (including yours truly) felt the same way about George W. Bush, though the issues and policies differed. If you look at how those sort of feelings hurt the GOP in the last two elections, it’s not too hard to see very rough sailing for the Democrats in the not-too-distant future.

Leftist Politicians And Media Outlets Continue To Demonize Average Americans

Leftist politicians and media talking heads are focusing on average American citizens who don’t want increased government control of their everyday lives. They have concentrated their efforts on demonizing those very Americans who don’t want a government takeover of the U.S. health care system. They have enlisted their “community organizing” and special interest groups to intimidate ordinary Americans. So far, they have accused concerned American citizens who are more informed about health care reform legislation than they are, of being organized, while at the same time disorganized, unruly, swastika-carrying, RNC and anti-health care reform lobbyist-funded Nazi mobs and “astroturf”. So much for the caring, compassionate, civil and tolerant left.

Now the Marxist George Soros has thrown his hat into the ring with a huge contribution to Health Care For America Now, a group dedicated to passing Obama’s health care plan [Article – Meet The New Health Czar]. Of course, Soros may be one of the world’s biggest leftist hypocrites. He is a billionaire, ladies and gentlemen. The very type of person that President Obama and the American left is supposed to hate. Soros does not have to worry about his health care because he can afford it, no matter what the cost is. All Mr. Soros cares about himself and the destruction of the United States of America. Mr. Soros is perfectly fine with Americans intimidating other Americans. He is perfectly fine that everything in our country is taken over by the government. To him, it doesn’t matter how we get there as long as we get there.

It’s been brought up here in ACW before, but it bears repeating:

Now I know leftists don’t like it when we throw their own words and actions back in their faces, but freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is for every American, not just a select few. It seems to me that during eight years of George W. Bush, there were a lot of things done in the name of the First Amendment that leftists didn’t appear to have any problems with.

Nancy Pelosi, you mentioned that swastikas were being displayed by “astroturf” at town halls in Colorado. Well, here they are:

Pelosi: Anti-Government Takeover Of Health Care Protestors “Un-American”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) calls the anti-government takeover of health care protestors “un-American” [Article – ‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate].

I thought a comment from one USA Today reader of the article penned by Pelosi was well-put:

“‘Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American’
As any conservative who has ever tried to give a speech on an American university campus could attest.”

Remember folks, Nancy Pelosi and other leftists believe that only they have the right to hold disruptive protests. They only have the right to create dissent and discord. They only have the right to disagree with their opposition. Case in point:

Here are some amusing and at the same time angering, examples of what I mean:

To TEA Partiers And Government Takeover Opponents: Have You Been Paid Yet?

Courtesy of the DNC:

Typical of the party controlled by far-left statists, Marxists and socialists, the Democrat party has reverted to form and started launching personal attacks and smear campaigns on average Americans. The DNC is accusing the RNC of providing monetary and material support to government-run health care opponents, including TEA partiers and citizens who either have no political affiliation or who are registered Democrats themselves. They accuse their opponents of spreading lies and falsehoods—LOOK WHO’S TALKING!

Let’s see who radical leftists have on their side: ACORN, COI, USAction and other “community organizing” groups, leftist media organizations, labor unions, educational institutions, quite a few Wall Street wheelers, dealers and financial magnates; Ted Turner, George Soros, Raul and Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, the CPUSA, the SPUSA, most of “Hollyweird”, TV talk show hosts and comedians and radical far-left activist groups. That’s a pretty impressive list compared to what the so-called “radical right-wing” conservatives have backing them up.

The leftist Democrat propaganda machine and those who make that machine what it is are professionals at deflection, misdirection, spreading lies, launching smear campaigns, publishing hit pieces, suppressing free speech and personal attacks. President Obama obviously approves of what the DNC and other leftist attack dogs are doing. Gee, for a guy who ran part of his campaign on “community organizing” and who showcased his experience as a “community organizer”, he sure is intolerant of folks who are doing the same thing. Oh that’s right, as long as they agree with him, it’s all good. Obama and other radical leftists like him are the very epitome of hypocrisy. One can say and do anything they want, as long as it is not in opposition to them. They viciously and mercilessly attacked George W. Bush and his administration during his eight years as president. Yet they have the audacity to expect opponents of President Obama and other Marxist politicians to just remain silent and sit idly by. They expect conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents to roll over and do nothing. All I have to say is, “SILENT NO MORE!”

To all TEA party members, lovers of freedom and liberty and all others who are opposed to government takeover of anything: The enemy considers you all misled and mindless followers comprising “unruly mob(s)” nationwide, who are bought and paid for by the RNC and anti-health care reform lobbyists.

My question for you is this: Have you received your checks from the RNC or your lobbyist sponsors yet? I’d like to know because I haven’t received my payment to date.