CONSERVATIVEGODDESS.COM

Guilt by Association

CG — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:06:00 GMT

Isn’t it interesting that when a handful (in a crowd of thousands) allegedly act stupidly they are automatically representative of the entire crowd? However, others can personally schmooze, make business deals, be mentored, and have cocktails with a series of unsavory characters and it’s just… (e.g.) oh well, “he had no idea that was his past” or “I never heard him say anything like that in the twenty years he was personally ministering to me”.

---JUST SAYIN', I thought guilt by association was unfair.

Here's the deal. If we are expected to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt that he is not "guilty by association" then the same consideration should be given to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are passionately, yet peacefully, voicing their discourse across the country. The same folks that used to take pride in protesting against what they felt was wrong with their government are now attempting to discount and suppress Americans that are doing the exact same thing now. Double standards seem to be in vogue on capital hill.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_obama_says_clueless_abou.html

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/_william_ayers_weather_undergr.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

"Mal-Distribution of Income"

CG — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:20:00 GMT

I wonder who died and made Mr. Baucus the judge of who makes too much money?

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.” - Max Baucus, Senator (D)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRPqeYi-60

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that." - Barack Obama, Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM, 2001

Our founding fathers learned from history the important lesson of "give them an inch and they will take a mile". Their intention was to protect us from an overreaching government...thus the reason for not spelling out what the federal government must do on our behalf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said that the American people would never vote for socialism but he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

Marxism: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

Statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

Breaking: Reconciliation Bill Posted

CG — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:41:00 GMT

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

House Democrats Appear Set to Pass Senate Bill Without Voting On It

CG — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:28:00 GMT

Congress is going to try and deliberately disregard the Constitution and pass through this health care proposal without it being voted on by making use of the so called "Slaughter Solution". They are doing this because they don't have the amount of votes to pass the Senate bill, and rather than be defeated they choose to violate the Constitution. This type of Constitutional deception “the Slaughter Solution” has never occurred before.

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...

Article By Jon Ward 03/12/10 at 1:24 PM, The Daily Caller

Republicans now expect Democrats to pass health care through the House with a trick only Capitol Hill could dream up: approving the Senate bill without voting on it.

Democrats will vote on a separate bill that includes language stating that the original Senate bill is “deemed passed.”

So by voting for the first bill — a reconciliation measure to fix certain things in the Senate bill — that will automatically pass the second bill — the original Senate bill — without a separate roll call taking place.

It’s called the “Slaughter Solution” (prepare for a weekend of endless TV gabbing about it).

And after debating House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the chamber floor, Minority Whip Eric Cantor emerged convinced that Democrats are going to use the tactic, and that they won’t allow Republicans, and the public, to see the text of any legislation for 72 hours before a vote.

“I can infer that we’re going to see a rule that will deem the Senate bill as having passed, and at the same time not even have 72 hours to even look at what they are passing,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an interview outside his office at the Capitol.

“The outrage to me on the part of the public is going to be focused on the fact that there is not even an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote,” Cantor said.

Here’s the reason Democrats are using such a complicated procedure: many in the House completely do not trust the Senate to pass fixes to the bill passed by the Senate in December. But according to the rules of reconciliation, the House must go first in passing the Senate bill and passing a reconciliation fix.

So House Democrats have been searching for a way to alleviate members’ concerns that if they vote for the Senate bill and the Senate does nothing to fix it, they will be hung out to dry as having supported a piece of legislation that many across the country dislike, either for spending reasons, or because of special provisions like the extra money for Nebraska’s Medicaid population (the “Cornhusker kickback”).

Technically, using the “Slaughter solution,” they’ll never have voted for the bill they find odious, even if their vote on the reconciliation legislation will have been the vote that passed the Senate bill into law.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, alluded to all this at her weekly press conference Friday.

“There are certain assurances that they want and that we will get for them before I ask them to take a vote,” Pelosi said.

The “Slaughter solution” is named for House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter, the New York Democrat who came up with the idea. She told the Daily Caller on Thursday that the chances of her procedure being used were “pretty good.”

Despite doubt among some on Capitol Hill on whether the “Slaughter solution” was feasible, Cantor expressed no doubt that the tactic could be used.

“It’s a self-executing rule. It is akin to passage but hidden in a rule as a side-note, passing the 2,700-page, $1 trillion bill, oh by the way,” he said.

Hoyer rejected the idea that Republicans have not had enough time to review the legislation.

“You have had months to review the substance of that bill. You don’t like it. We understand. You’re going to oppose it. We understand that as well. The fact of the matter is you cannot say you have had no notice of each and every provision for over two months,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.

Cantor said he wanted 72 hours to review the final text of the reconciliation bill.

“The reconciliation bill is new text. He claims it’s old hat, but this is clearly where they’re reconciling differences,” Cantor said, expressing concern that Democrats would rush the final text to the House floor for a vote to keep “sweeteners” used to buy off votes from being discovered.

Democrats are coalescing around a schedule for the bill’s route to the House floor for a vote. They are expecting a final score from the Congressional Budget Office later today.

On Monday, the House Budget Committee will mark the bill up, leading to an expected vote in the Rules Committee on Wednesday, with a final vote by the full House possible next weekend.

The question remains, however, whether Pelosi will even be able to round up enough votes to pass a bill.

Momentum continued to go the wrong direction for her on Friday, as two more Democrats said they are opposed to the bill.

Other articles and opinion:
http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/03/11/cbs-political-hotsheet-reporter-suggests-slaughter-solution-term-unfair/
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/house-democrats-looking-at-slaughter-solution-to-pass/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/12/democrats.against.health.care/index.html

I’m Not a Conspiracy Theorist… I PROMISE…but…

CG — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:32:00 GMT

Ok, over the last week I have tried my best to avoid something that seems odd because I didn’t want to be “one of those people”. By that I mean people who routinely turn every situation into a major world-wide conspiracy that will lead ultimately to a “Soylent Green” type government atrocity. I must say, I am a news junkie. It is the first thing I turn on in the morning, I listen to it on my lunch break, during the 25 minute drive to work and from work, and in the evening I watch the pundits and then I blog a little. I like to think of myself as a reasonable and well rounded conservative.

I tend to research things for myself before taking a stance on an issue. Therefore, when I first heard about the Toyota accelerator recall I didn’t take sides. I found it extremely sad that people had been injured or lost their life due to the problem. However, the next day when the Honda recall was announced I started to think about this a little more deeply. Then when I heard that the government was pressuring these companies to conduct a recall I became even more cynical. I started searching online for articles about these situations and found that the coverage of this story is far over and above any other recall in recent history. Companies encounter recalls almost every year. How many of us have experienced receiving a recall notice in the mail shortly after making a purchase? It is quite common.

As of today I personally have not heard a single news personality touch on the subject I am about to discuss. Perhaps it is because they lack evidence, a source or perhaps they are afraid to approach the subject because people have died during these unfortunate events and they do not want to look unsympathetic.

The current administration and congress chose to become the majority owner of General Motors. The same government serves as the regulatory authority over General Motor’s competition. Am I the only one that thinks this is a giant CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Who benefits the most from Toyota’s failure?

Another aspect of this that bothers me is the vocalism of Ms. Joan Claybrook, former president of Public Citizen, a George Soros funded and Ralph Nadar founded, social justice organization. Over the last few days she has been interviewed extensively regarding the Toyota recall and she issued scathing criticism of Toyota. Public Citizen uses the same George Soros’ not-for-profit donation collection software as ACORN and a host of other ultra “progressive” organizations including Campaign for Americas Future who is “daily working to bring about the progressive transformation.”

Here is an article I found which shows Claybrook’s cozy relationship with the UAW. http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc060309.html.

Regardless of whether or not Toyota handled the situation correctly, it is quite disturbing that not only does the government own Toyota’s competitor, but also the entity that is tasked with regulating their safety. I understand completely the need for making sure products are not a danger to consumers. However, the water gets muddy when the government gets involved in private sector business. I’m sure that this administration would like nothing more than for GM to show awesome profits this year which would seemingly solidify their claims that they saved the day. Government Motors immediately jumped on the ‘bash Toyota bandwagon’ and within hours issued incentives enticing Toyota owners to jump ship and buy GM.

I’ve included links to interesting articles I have stumbled upon during my research. I think it begins to paint a picture of the connections between the current administration, George Soros, other “progressive” organizations like Public Citizen, and the UAW. A combination that leaves no room for a strong competitor like Toyota.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/03/chicago-style-intimidation-of

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004498

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/mark_tapscott_pelosi_preparing_new_shackles_for_free_speech2006-12-19T08_00_00.html?c=y

MORE INFO TO COME!

-CG

Basic Definitions and Constitutional Arguments Against Socialism and other Tyrannical Ideologies

CG — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:22:00 GMT

The government now has majority ownership of some private corporations, they have interest in private banking due to bailouts, and now they want control of private health care. If we do not control our very health choices, what freedom do we really have? Our religious freedoms are slowly being chipped away by the ACLU as they push for freedom from religion not freedom of religion. Success is being demonized and the successful are being taxed into settling for mediocracy. Jobs are slipping away because businesses must choose between paying taxes or hiring employees. Deficits are rising so government spends more and when that doesn't work we spend some more because we didn't spend enough the first time. This week our president and congress passed a bill that will increase our national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion, bringing our national debt to $14.3 trillion. To put that in perspective you would have to spend $19,491,583 per day for 2010 years to pay off the debt. It also represents over $40,000 per man, woman, and child in the United States of America.

Think of $1.9 Trillion in this way...
The Washington Monument stands about 555 feet tall. Stacked end to end, it would take more than 2.4 billion monuments to reach 1.35 trillion feet. That's well more than double the distance from the Earth to the sun. I've provided you basic definitions and constitutional references that I think everyone should commit to memory so they are prepared to intelligently discuss the freedoms of capitalism vs. the slavery of other tyranical ideologies. I hope this is helpful.

"Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off." -Ayn Rand

DEFINITIONS TO KNOW:

Capitalism

1: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom. Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Communism

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Progressivism

is a political and social term for ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies (public management) and liberal direction for social policies. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Marxism

is a particular political philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysis of capitalism, a theory of social change, and an atheist view of human liberation derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The three primary aspects of Marxism are:

1. The dialectical and materialist concept of history — Humankind's history is fundamentally that of the struggle between social classes. The productive capacity of society is the foundation of society, and as this capacity increases over time the social relations of production, class relations, evolve through this struggle of the classes and pass through definite stages (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). The legal, political, ideological and other aspects (ex. art) of society are derived from these production relations as is the consciousness of the individuals of which the society is composed.

2. The critique of capitalism — In capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit the working class (proletariat) majority. Marx uncovered the interworkings of capitalist exploitation, the specific way in which unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the working class (the labor theory of value), extending and critiquing the work of earlier political economists on value. Although the production process is socialized, ownership remains in the hand of the bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production, human society is unable to achieve further development.

3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve

Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

The government now has majority ownership of private corporations, have interest in private banking due to the bailouts, and now they want control of private health care. If we do not control our very health choices, what freedom do we really have? Our religious freedoms as slowly being chipped away at by the ACLU and their push for freedom from religion not freedom of religion. Success is being demonized and the successful are being taxed into settling for mediocracy.

"Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off." -Ayn Rand

The 4th Amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fifth Amendment further protects property, by stating:

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Tenth Amendment … Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Go here to see a list of states that have recently passed state sovereignty resolutions:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/10th-amendment-resolutions/

Other references:
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/nation/story/1447070.html
Meriam-Webster Dictionary

Spending Comparison...

CG — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:45:00 GMT

'If Massachusetts puts Brown in, it's a message of 'that's enough.' Let's stop the giveaways and let's get jobs going."

Marlene Connolly is a 73-year-old Massachusetts Democrat who cast her first vote for a Republican in supporting Scott Brown. Her quote and story comes to us via the New York Times, but she stands out for this reason: She shows us that those who actually cast ballots in the Bay State did so because they are frustrated with the administration's unrestrained federal spending and failed economic recovery policies.

And here's what Washington needs to keep in mind as it debates the meaning of Massachusetts. Ramming health care through now won't insulate Democrats from voter ire in November. It will feed a fire over spending that is already blistering them.

But don't take my word for it. Consider that the administration is now busy scrambling to find a way to dodge responsibility for its own reckless fiscal record. That much was on display recently when David Axelrod, a political strategist for the president, penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post that took aim directly at me.

Mr. Axelrod wrote that no one is entitled to his own facts, even as he argued that George W. Bush is responsible for Barack Obama's deficits. He argued that Mr. Bush forced the hand of this administration by leaving office in the midst of a sharp recession.

That argument won't fly for two reasons. First, at some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It's also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.

By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.

Mr. Obama's spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10.

Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade.

Team Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010.

Mr. Bush did move to give voters more control over their tax dollars. Both his Social Security reform ideas and the drug program he created offered templates for driving federal spending curves in the right direction, counter to what Democrats wanted to do.

Democrats, for example, proposed creating a prescription drug program as an alternative to the one Mr. Bush proposed that would have cost a projected $800 billion over 10 years. The Bush drug benefit was originally expected to cost half that amount and today costs a third less than what it was initially expected to cost because it uses market forces to drive prices down.

Mr. Axelrod claims the pork-laden stimulus package has been a success. But Mr. Obama told Americans that if it were passed, unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%. It is now 10%. The president also said it would create 3.7 million jobs, 90% of which would be in the private sector. By Mr. Obama's standards, the stimulus failed miserably.

Mr. Bush did sign the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) into law and loaned $240 billion to banks. But those loans are being returned at a profit to the Treasury. Rather than using those funds to pay down the deficit, Mr. Obama wants to use them for new spending. What's more, he has lavished some $320 billion from TARP on car companies, union allies, and pet causes that will never be fully returned.

Mr. Axelrod boasts Mr. Obama's proposed health reforms will "not add to the federal deficit." But if that turns out to be true, it will only be because Massachusetts voters just elected a senator who promises to vote against those reforms.

In going after Mr. Bush's fiscal record, Mr. Axelrod unwittingly revealed why Democrats are losing. Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have made a mess of the nation's finances and are desperate to pin the blame on someone else. It's not likely to work.

Even in deep blue Massachusetts, voters aren't standing idly by while the administration puts the nation on a dangerous trajectory. When Democrats lose a state they carried by 26 points a little more than a year ago, very little is safe for Mr. Obama's party this fall.

By KARL ROVE
Wall Street Journal

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

CG — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:14:00 GMT

When I first read Atlas Shrugged about a year ago I was riveted by the amazing correlations to what is presently happening in our country and around the world. However, only a year later, I am even more amazed at how prophetic Ayn Rand's writings seem to be. After reading her best seller I moved on to read a couple of her other books, My favorite being "For the New Intellectual". What strikes me most about Shrugged is the portrayal of how society demonized success and ridiculed those that actually produced and "kept the engine (economy) running". In the book there is extreme unemployment and the government has interfered with private enterprise to the point that ultimately the economy has collapsed. This recent article in the Wall Street Journal captured my attention and I wanted to share it with you and get your opinions. -CG

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Getty Images - The art for a 1999 postage stamp.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

A Must Read...

CG — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 02:31:00 GMT

Is there a push to Federalize voter registration? This new article by Ed Lasky is very interesting and worth a read. Here is an excerpt...

" Democracy Alliance," composed of billionaire funders and savvy political operatives who set out a few years ago to change politics as we know it in America. Among their projects was something called the Secretary of States Project that set about electing secretaries of state in key battleground states. These are the very officials who are charged with maintaining the integrity of the voting process. Recall the controversies in Ohio and Minnesota -- including ACORN problems -- regarding the accuracy of the votes in those states last year? The secretaries of state who gave a stamp of approval to these elections (where Democrats won) were Democrats supported by the Democracy Alliance. Various state chapters of the Democracy Alliance have formed to use a range of controversial methods to ensure Democratic victories. (See "The Colorado Model" by Fred Barnes for a display of the type of tactics that can be used to manipulate elections. These include creating faux controversies, spreading them through supposedly non-partisan groups created by Democrat activists, and relying on an echo chamber effect until the mainstream media picks up the "story" and broadcasts it far and wide. Other groups are formed to harass journalists and editorial writers who don't push the liberal line.)

To read the entire article click here:

http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/512995.html

Wise Words from the Past

CG — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:01:00 GMT

Reagan: Tear Down This Wall
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8

Reagan: Speaks out on Socialized Medicine
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Killing Capitalism Soros-Style

CG — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:05:00 GMT

By Matthew Vadum Thursday, November 5, 2009

Here’s the top of it: Having purchased, rented, or placed a down payment on all the political influence up for sale in America, leftist troublemaker George Soros now plans to ramp up his war on markets worldwide by creating an “Institute for New Economic Thinking” (INET).

“The system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it,” Soros told the Financial Times last month.

In an interview with Der Spiegel last year Soros said European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society.”

As preparation for INET, which already has a functioning website, Soros gathered economists to plot his renewed drive for world statism. One of those economists is Joseph Stiglitz, a member of the Socialist International. Stiglitz sits on SI’s Commission on Global Financial Issues, which was created “to address from a social democratic perspective the ongoing global financial crisis.” Of course to socialists a capitalist economy is by definition always in crisis, but that’s a discussion for another day. [...]

Matthew Vadum Most recent columns

Source:

Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center, a Washington D.C.-based think tank that focuses on the politics of philanthropy. He has appeared on “Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,” “O’Reilly Factor,” “America’s Nightly Scoreboard,” “G. Gordon Liddy Show,” “Michael Reagan Show,” “Janet Parshall’s America,” “The Lars Larson Show,” “Greg Knapp Experience,” “Politics of Money,” “Glenn Beck” and has been published in the Washington Times, Boston Herald, Las Vegas Review Journal, American Spectator, Human Events.

CBO Confirms GOP Plan Will Lower Health Care Premiums

CG — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:15:00 GMT

CBO Confirms GOP Plan Will Lower Health Care Premiums, Lower Deficit Without Tax Hikes on Families & Small Businesses
Nonpartisan Congressional Scorekeeper: GOP Plan Lowers Premiums By Up to 10 Percent

Washington, Nov 4 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed in a letter tonight that the Republican health care plan will lower health care premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses:

“When it comes to reforming health care, controlling skyrocketing costs is the American peoples’ top priority. Now CBO has confirmed that the Republican plan will lower health care costs for American families, and that’s good news for everyone struggling in today’s economy. The choice now could not be clearer: Speaker Pelosi’s plan raises costs. Our plan lowers them.

“Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care – including for those with pre-existing conditions – at a price our country can afford. The cost of the Speaker’s bill, now at $1.3 trillion and counting, is a debt that will be paid for by our kids and our grandkids. The American people deserve a better solution, and Republicans’ smart, fiscally-responsible plans give them exactly what they want.”

NOTE: In a letter delivered tonight, CBO estimated that the GOP health care plan would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. Specifically:

•   For the small group market (generally businesses with 2 to 50 employees), the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 for example by up to 10 percent.
•   For the individual market, the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 by up to eight percent.
•   For the large group market, the GOP plan would reduce premiums in 2016 by up to three percent.

http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153130

Founder of Weather Channel and 30,000 Scientists want to Sue Al Gore for Fraud

CG — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:18:00 GMT

Click below to view interview from FoxNews Channel's Red Eye Program:

VIDEO

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

Coleman started his career at WCIA in Champaign, Illinois, doing the early evening weathercast and a local bandstand show called At The Hop while he was a student at . After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather anchor for WCIA's sister station WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and WLS-TV in Chicago.

At WLS, Coleman was teamed with Fahey Flynn, Joel Daly and Bill Frink to form the Eyewitness News Team, creating a news brand name and establishing a highly successful new local news format dubbed "happy talk" by a local television columnist. This style of local news has been widely copied. The team dominated Chicago television news ratings for more than a decade. During his time at Chicago's WLS-TV, Coleman was one of Chicago's most popular weathercasters, famous for his amusing and irreverent style. It was then that Coleman became the original weathercaster on what was then the brand-new ABC network morning program, Good Morning America. He stayed seven years with this top-rated program anchored by David Hartman and Joan Lunden.

In 1981 he persuaded communications entrepreneur Frank Batten to help establish The Weather Channel, serving as TWC's CEO and President during the startup and its first year of operation. After leaving TWC, Coleman became weather anchor at WCBS-TV in New York and then at WMAQ-TV in Chicago, before moving to Southern California to join the independent television station, KUSI-TV in San Diego, in what Coleman fondly calls, "his retirement job."

What's $2 Trillion? $2,727,452 per day since Jesus.

CG — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:56:00 GMT

While the liberals attempt to demonize the insurance companies let's take a look at the numbers. Who issued the most denials of coverage?... Our loving and compasionate Government!

Approximately 15% of the nation is on Medicare.

Now, imaging what it is going to be like when they are trying to handle 100% of our healthcare needs (population 305,000,000+ ).

Don't be fooled, there will be unprecedented rationing of care. Think about it... when you have a beef with your insurance company you can at least call them and perhaps negotiate with them. Have you ever tried to negotiate with the IRS?

Just to put the dollars in perspective...

438,593 people go to the hospital each year for care. With the $2 Trillion that the proposed health care plan will cost, over ten years you could pay each one of these people... $456,003.

For an individual to spend $2 Trillion Dollars they would have to spend approximately $2,727,452 per day since Jesus (2009 years).

What happened to global warming?

CG — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:32:00 GMT

I try not to simply post an article but I think this is incredibly important. Actions to "alleviate" Global Warming (now politically correct... "Climate Change") will profoundly change our way of life if those that push this agenda succeed. This weekend the BBC's Climate Correspondent posted this report and it needs to be shared.

By Paul Hudson

Climate correspondent, BBC News

Friday, 9 October 2009

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change skeptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Skeptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth’s warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists’ main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can’t have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specializing in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionize the whole subject.

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change skeptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a skeptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Skeptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Of course the BBC felt obligated to pretend that the ‘Warmers’ have an answer for this. But they don’t.

In fact, even though they have figured in the sun and oceans as factors all along, they are disproved by this indisputable fact:

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

The “Warmers” should not be deciding policy for our country or the rest of the world.

If anything, they should be in jail.

Know Your Czars!... Vol 1: John Holdren, Science Czar

CG — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:30:00 GMT

For John Holdren, Top Advisor to President Obama in Science and Technology, overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many. (2009 we are at 305M) "In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.

When questioned about population control during his confirmation hearing, Holdren asserted that describing those measures did not indicate his endorsement of them. The book states that “Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to justify compulsion.” Over 30 years later, Holdren testified that he doesn’t find it “productive” to focus on America’s “optimum population. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is,” he said.

My concern is… Does he really think that at any time and under any circumstance someone or some government should have the right to determine what is “optimum population” and act on it?

Lukewarm?

CG — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:46:00 GMT

Today while listening to a local talk show host I was reminded of the following scripture…

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm— neither hot nor cold— I am about to spit you out of my mouth. Revelation 3:15-16 NIV

During the show the host inquired about whether state Republicans should welcome in Democrats that may be expressing an interest in switching parties for the 2010 elections. The incumbent representatives and senators have seen and heard the outrage expressed during the tea parties, protests, and town hall meetings and have felt the heat and are now ready to get out of the kitchen and into the comfort of the Republican Party. In my state conservatism is the norm even if it is sometimes in the form of the “Old Time” Democrat Party.

My initial reaction to the question was... “Sure we should welcome them in, we must be winning their hearts and minds”. Then, with the help of the host, I shook myself into reality and started thinking things through properly. They are just trying to jump off the sinking ship onto the nearest rescue boat. Do we really want to dilute the raw, genuine conservatism that recently has been revived by welcoming in those that do not truly share conservative values?

I think that if true conservatism is the goal we must chose candidates that are genuinely “hot” for conserving our constitution and our liberty and avoid the dangers of becoming “lukewarm”.

CG 10-8-09

ACORN-Soros-Obama Connections

CG — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:10:00 GMT

A few weeks ago I started doing a little poking around on the ACORN website. I had heard many times about all the connections between Soros, Acorn and the Administration. However, I guess I wanted to see for myself. I found some interesting things that prompted me to dig a little further. Some of this information may be old news but I thought it was worth sharing. I think this shows the complete circle. First I have provided a summary of how I see things. Further down are links and other information I found.

ACORN: Organization with Not-for-Profit Status that hides behind the "non-partisan" facade so as to continue recieving tax payer funding. Exposed for corrupt practices including facilitating prostitution and voter fraud aligations.

GEORGE SOROS - Ultra Liberal and Ultra Rich financier of ACORN, Barack Obama Campaign, Media Matters, Open Society Institute, and a spider web of other organizations and causes. Owns much of the media.

BARACK OBAMA - Benefits by ACORN's eagerness to keep the money flowing by using voter registration to build their membership and thus their donations. Supports (or did) ACORN so as to please the one holding the purse strings (SOROS), the motor behind his campaign.

ACORN uses Soros funded "organizing" software (democracy in action) to compile their databases and collect donations. A COMPLETE CIRCLE!

***********************************

CONNECTING THE DOTS

www.acorn.org
Someone wanting to make a Donation would click on a link that re-directs them here... https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2749/t/4538/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=2769

What is “Salsa Wired for Change?
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com

It is software for organizers and not-for-profits “organize and energize people”
This site leads to a link for…
“Democracy in Action”… “Wiring the Progressive Movement” at:
http://www2.democracyinaction.org

This is what this website says on the “about us” page:

The organization was founded by April Pedersen and Chris Lundberg in February 2004. April and Chris come from both the nonprofit and software development sectors. ...
DemocracyInAction is funded by a mixture of service fees from the organizations ) using our tools, private grants, and individual donations. You can become a (ACORNDemocracy In Action donor here. Many thanks to our foundation grantors, the Surdna Foundation and the Open Society Institute, for their support.

Question: What is Surdna Foundation?
Answer: http://www.surdna.org/about/about_show.htm?doc_id=328999%am987�t_id=985
Question...What is Open Society Institute?
Answer...http://www.soros.org/
Bill O'Reilly touched on this in the following video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpZZGTGVePE

More Soros - ACORN - Obama Links and Information:

Open Society’s Institute Annual Report:

http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/
ar08_20090720/i_osi_exp_credits.pdf
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5181&category=79

The Soros-Obama Connection
Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:11:28 am PDT

Adding to Stanley Kurtz’s article on Barack Obama’s long-term association with the far-left group ACORN, an Investor’s Business Daily profile makes another connection, to the guy whose money finances so many of these groups: George Soros: The Man, The Mind And The Money Behind MoveOn.

Soros’ efforts go beyond spin. He has also bankrolled groups involved in the manipulation of elections, an activity that has increased since his money came into the picture. Two groups — Americans Coming Together and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — were sanctioned recently by the Federal Election Commission for fraud.

Soros pledged $10 million to ACT, which has since been fined $775,000 for illegally funneling $70 million set aside for voter registrations to Democratic candidates.
He also gave at least $150,000 to ACORN, the left-wing group best known for pushing minimum-wage hikes, marching for illegal-immigrant amnesty and harassing Wal-Mart. ACORN has been accused of voter fraud in 13 states since 2004 and was convicted of falsifying signatures in a voter registration drive last July, drawing a fine of $25,000 in Washington state.

Soros says he has ended funding to voter-drive organizations, but he still heads a secretive rich-man’s club called “Democracy Alliance” that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN.

You don’t have to play six degrees of Soros to get to Barack Obama, though. Here’s a photo of Obama at a fundraiser at the New York residence of Steven and Judy Gluckstern in April 2007—and sitting next to him, in the blue shirt, is none other than George Soros.

George Soros first showed up at LGF in November 2003, when he compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler: Soros: Bush = Hitler.
Now he’s a presidential candidate’s (now president's) left hand man.

During Voter Registration drives, ACORN - using money obtained from its 501(c)(3) Project Vote - would use the voter registration cards after attaching propaganda designed to increase membership. ACORN would sign up voters as provisional members and then contact them using information gleaned from the cards to turn the voter into a dues paying member. Data entry of voter information was handled at 34 cents a card after they were shipped to the Brooklyn ACORN office. According to internal documents ACORN had a strategic plan to build is membership off of voter registration drives paid for by donations and government funds

Concept Paper:
Building Organization Off the 2008 Election Cycle
Moving Forward

"Now that we’ve grown more experienced in delivering the product (voter reg cards), the discussion in 2007 around designing the 2008 program has taken an interesting and exciting turn: how can we use the voter registration program to build and move mass membership, and build power for our members through campaign victories.

Data management is our Achilles heel. For the OCC [] to be effective there needs to be a way to get all VR [voter registration] card/member combos to be data entered within 2-3 days of being collected on the street. If not, the contact goes cold. For this quick turnaround to exist data entry may need to be done locally. It is possible cards could be scanned and emailed to a national data entry provider. Both means have challenges, however working from an electronic list from the get go is key to a successful follow up program.

Once VR cards/membership card responses are entered they can be put into phone lists for OCC workers. Calls should be made within 3-5 days of the contact being made on the street. It has been suggested that each OCC worker should have an electronic list of new registers/members in front of them. This means a computer on every desk of an OCC worker, along with a phone line. As callers make calls they record answers, and suspicious activity, directly into the data. In this way it is easier to generate “yes” lists or appointments for organizers. Also when using a data base, depending on the size of the list, we may want to do mailings, or email blasts. It would also be great to give every name a bar code to swipe them into the data base." Clip from: www.publiusforum.com/2009/05/27/acorn-soros-and-the-census/)

Soros is also behind a political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance which supported the goals of the U.S. Democratic Party. Democracy Alliance is also backed by SEIU. According to Matthew Vadum, a senior editor at the conservative Capital Research Center, Democracy Alliance members gave more than $100 million to liberal nonprofit groups:

• Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
• America Votes
• Center for Community Change
• Catalist
• EMILY's List
• Sierra Club
• USAction
• Air America Radio
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
• Media Matters for America
• Center for Independent Media
• People for the American Way
• Center for American Progress
• Economic Policy Institute
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
• Center for Progressive Leadership
• New Democrat Network
• Progressive Majority

http://www.thenextright.com/anita-moncrief/acorn-soros-and-the-census

ALSO...
Obama-Soros-ACORN Healthcare Connection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYKDQCEZnhs