|
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents: James Madison
Hello world!
3 years ago
October 05, 2010
FairTax Patriot, #Mi- Romeo #Teaparty Townhall w/ #Migop Rick Snyder 4 #MiGov, Friday 10/08/10 5:30PM-12350 31 Mile Rd. Bring signs
Mi Fairtax Clarion~ Grassroots Action=JOBS in Michigan
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:05:29 -0400
From: don.dobrosky@mifairtax.org
To: rgdunn@veionline.com
Subject: Grassroots Action=JOBS
| Having trouble viewing this email? Click here |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michigan FairTax Association | PO Box 703 | Sterling Heights | MI | 48311 |
Progressives & Communists:Out of the Closet-Together *DANGERS OF UNDER CONFIDENCE *#Mi01:McDowell & Tax Cuts *The Day Dems Took Over
October 04, 2010
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/progressives_and_communists_ou_1.html at October 04, 2010 - 11:12:04 AM CDT
Progressives and Communists: Out of the Closet -- Together
By Paul KengorA close look at the Saturday "One Nation" rally in Washington reveals something quite telling. It was a major gathering of the "progressive" left, highly billed, vigorously promoted. And it happened to include -- in fact, it warmly accepted -- the endorsement of Communist Party USA.
Expectedly, a bunch of the rally's endorsers carried the word "progress" or "progressive" in their title, from People's Organization for Progress to Progressive Democrats of America. More still unhesitatingly describe themselves as progressive, from racial eugenicist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood to Norman Lear's heirs at People for the American Way, plus the usual suspects from the "social justice" Religious Left.
And then, too, there was CPUSA.
Why is this so remarkable? It's remarkable because historically, communist involvement at these rallies has been meticulously concealed, hidden from progressives, with the communists using the progressives as props -- as dupes. That the two sides here, on Saturday, happily accepted one another, proudly uniting, shows how far to the left progressives have moved, not to mention their unflagging confidence under the ascendancy of Obama-Pelosi-Reid.
My personal experience on this is very instructive. I've chronicled how communists, for a century now, cunningly manipulated progressives, surreptitiously drawing them into their rallies, protests, and petitions, not letting themselves (or their intentions) be known. I have fliers from marches sixty and seventy years ago, with many of the same endorsers that were there on Saturday, but with CPUSA's name smartly absent, even as CPUSA members canvassed the rally, if not spearheading it.
Back then, the communists' stunning successes suckering progressives shocked even Moscow. They fooled them right up to the front gates of the White House in the summer of 1940, where the hideous communist front the American Peace Mobilization duped even the New York Times into headlining it as a "clergy group." They pulled off an extraordinary stunt in Chicago in the summer of 1968, sabotaging the Democratic National Convention. Communists managed to enlist progressives into undermining their own Democratic presidents and parties and platforms.
As an indicator of the success and duration of this manipulation, consider this fact:
When Congress, in December 1961, published its seminal investigation of communist fronts, titled "Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications," a product of research dating to the founding of the American Communist Party in Chicago in 1919, the most popular index listing started with the word "Progressive." It was progressive groups that were misled, used, abused, and infiltrated more than any other.
How long has this continued? All the way to the 2008 election.
Consider the group Progressives for Obama, formed during Obama's presidential bid. It was loaded with and even founded by some hardcore communists from the 1960s. Consider merely two of them: Tom Hayden, one of the group's four founders, and Mark Rudd, one of the 94 original signers. Hayden and Rudd had been leaders of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which subverted the policies and plans of Democratic presidents ranging from Vietnam to the 1968 convention. In 2008, both Hayden and Rudd suddenly reemerged as "Progressives for Obama."
Rudd's take on how Obama won the 2008 election is shrewd -- and dead on. Understanding that moderates and independents made the difference, Rudd noted the crucial importance of Obama not openly conceding his far-left views. Rudd wrote,
Basically, what Rudd said is that Obama hoodwinked "centrist" and "cross-over" voters. As Rudd rightly put it, Obama couldn't be candid about his true intentions in "this environment." That's an environment where Americans, in poll after poll, have described themselves as "conservative" over "liberal" by a margin of 2:1, by approximately 40% to 20%, for decades now. Incredibly, those numbers were unchanged even on November 4, 2008, when Obama easily won the election.
Thus, a candidate like Obama can succeed only by pushing his agenda guardedly. He ran as a centrist, not as National Journal's certified "most liberal senator in 2007." It worked. As Rudd put it, Obama "didn't blow it."
America's exalted moderates and independents were duped by a nebulous, catch-all-be-all banner of "change." Now, the progressives are in power, ready to implement the kind of change they had in mind all along.
And now, with Obama having secured victory, the likes of Rudd and Hayden -- shocked that the electorate finally voted for their kind of guy -- have been less circumspect about their intentions. Rudd urges, "Here's my mantra: 'Let's put this country on our shoulders and get to work.'"
Rudd has rolled up his sleeves, as have his erstwhile comrades.
And that was precisely what spilled into the streets on Saturday, October 2 in the "One Nation" rally, fittingly centralized in Washington. This time, however, the collective was unafraid, buttressed by a confidence that coaxed the communists out of the closet and into the welcoming arms of "progressives."
Gee, you'd think that after the collapse of the USSR and the Berlin Wall, and after 100 million corpses, progressives would be fleeing communists like the plague.
The election of Obama-Pelosi-Reid in November 2008 -- by America's "independents" and "moderates" -- has dawned a new day for the American Left -- or, at least perhaps, until November 2010. We shall see.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Expectedly, a bunch of the rally's endorsers carried the word "progress" or "progressive" in their title, from People's Organization for Progress to Progressive Democrats of America. More still unhesitatingly describe themselves as progressive, from racial eugenicist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood to Norman Lear's heirs at People for the American Way, plus the usual suspects from the "social justice" Religious Left.
And then, too, there was CPUSA.
Why is this so remarkable? It's remarkable because historically, communist involvement at these rallies has been meticulously concealed, hidden from progressives, with the communists using the progressives as props -- as dupes. That the two sides here, on Saturday, happily accepted one another, proudly uniting, shows how far to the left progressives have moved, not to mention their unflagging confidence under the ascendancy of Obama-Pelosi-Reid.
My personal experience on this is very instructive. I've chronicled how communists, for a century now, cunningly manipulated progressives, surreptitiously drawing them into their rallies, protests, and petitions, not letting themselves (or their intentions) be known. I have fliers from marches sixty and seventy years ago, with many of the same endorsers that were there on Saturday, but with CPUSA's name smartly absent, even as CPUSA members canvassed the rally, if not spearheading it.
Back then, the communists' stunning successes suckering progressives shocked even Moscow. They fooled them right up to the front gates of the White House in the summer of 1940, where the hideous communist front the American Peace Mobilization duped even the New York Times into headlining it as a "clergy group." They pulled off an extraordinary stunt in Chicago in the summer of 1968, sabotaging the Democratic National Convention. Communists managed to enlist progressives into undermining their own Democratic presidents and parties and platforms.
As an indicator of the success and duration of this manipulation, consider this fact:
When Congress, in December 1961, published its seminal investigation of communist fronts, titled "Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications," a product of research dating to the founding of the American Communist Party in Chicago in 1919, the most popular index listing started with the word "Progressive." It was progressive groups that were misled, used, abused, and infiltrated more than any other.
How long has this continued? All the way to the 2008 election.
Consider the group Progressives for Obama, formed during Obama's presidential bid. It was loaded with and even founded by some hardcore communists from the 1960s. Consider merely two of them: Tom Hayden, one of the group's four founders, and Mark Rudd, one of the 94 original signers. Hayden and Rudd had been leaders of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which subverted the policies and plans of Democratic presidents ranging from Vietnam to the 1968 convention. In 2008, both Hayden and Rudd suddenly reemerged as "Progressives for Obama."
Rudd's take on how Obama won the 2008 election is shrewd -- and dead on. Understanding that moderates and independents made the difference, Rudd noted the crucial importance of Obama not openly conceding his far-left views. Rudd wrote,
Obama is a very strategic thinker. He knew precisely what it would take to get elected and didn't blow it. But he also knew that what he said had to basically play to the center to not ... scare centrist and cross-over voters away. He made it. ... And I agree with this strategy. ... Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment.
Basically, what Rudd said is that Obama hoodwinked "centrist" and "cross-over" voters. As Rudd rightly put it, Obama couldn't be candid about his true intentions in "this environment." That's an environment where Americans, in poll after poll, have described themselves as "conservative" over "liberal" by a margin of 2:1, by approximately 40% to 20%, for decades now. Incredibly, those numbers were unchanged even on November 4, 2008, when Obama easily won the election.
Thus, a candidate like Obama can succeed only by pushing his agenda guardedly. He ran as a centrist, not as National Journal's certified "most liberal senator in 2007." It worked. As Rudd put it, Obama "didn't blow it."
America's exalted moderates and independents were duped by a nebulous, catch-all-be-all banner of "change." Now, the progressives are in power, ready to implement the kind of change they had in mind all along.
And now, with Obama having secured victory, the likes of Rudd and Hayden -- shocked that the electorate finally voted for their kind of guy -- have been less circumspect about their intentions. Rudd urges, "Here's my mantra: 'Let's put this country on our shoulders and get to work.'"
Rudd has rolled up his sleeves, as have his erstwhile comrades.
And that was precisely what spilled into the streets on Saturday, October 2 in the "One Nation" rally, fittingly centralized in Washington. This time, however, the collective was unafraid, buttressed by a confidence that coaxed the communists out of the closet and into the welcoming arms of "progressives."
Gee, you'd think that after the collapse of the USSR and the Berlin Wall, and after 100 million corpses, progressives would be fleeing communists like the plague.
The election of Obama-Pelosi-Reid in November 2008 -- by America's "independents" and "moderates" -- has dawned a new day for the American Left -- or, at least perhaps, until November 2010. We shall see.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
THE DANGERS OF UNDER CONFIDENCE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on October 4, 2010
Just as when the Republican establishment wrote off Scott Brown's effort to capture "Ted Kennedy's" seat in the Senate, the Washington Republicans may be under estimating the number of seats the GOP can capture in the House of Representatives.
Over confidence is not a danger. Everybody is working as hard as they can to elect Republicans all over America. Nobody is apathetic on the right. The only indifference and passivity in the nation is on the left. But under confidence - writing off seats that we can win - is a huge obstacle to further progress.
The swath of destruction Obama has cut through our economy, banking system, manufacturing base, and medical profession is so broad and ugly that Republicans and Independents everywhere are determined to end his mandate by electing a Republican Congress in 2010. Seats that Republicans had no chance to win in previous elections are suddenly in play. With scores of Democratic incumbent Congressmen polling at under 50% of the vote, the possibilities for Republican gains are enormous.
But Republican funding and tactical focus is having a hard time keeping pace with the political developments on the ground. Handicappers like Cook Political Report are slow in switching their predictions quickly enough as the Republican wave sweeps through the nation. GOP national committees and PACs run the risk that they will concentrate too much money on races that are already won, leaving opportunities to rot on the vine in other districts.
This process of under estimating the chances for Republican victories is fed by two mistakes in polling methodology - and one in survey analysis -- which are understating Republican chances in the coming elections.
While most pollsters survey only likely voters, their screens to determine who will vote are too porous, letting through many who will not actually make it to the polls. Most surveys simply ask if voters are likely to participate or not rather than asking how enthusiastic the survey participant is about voting. Rankings based on enthusiasm and intensity - sure guides to actual turnout - are generating far more Republican samples than those that are ultimately published.
And many pollsters are weighting their data so their samples conform to traditional party distribution. When their samples yield too many self-described Republicans and too few Democrats (as measured against historic norms) they weight down the Republican interviews and weight up the Democratic ones to adjust. But, in reality, they are obscuring the very findings of their surveys. Voters are becoming more Republican and Democrats are becoming Independents. These trends are hard to spot when data is weighted.
Finally, in assessing the meaning of the polls, analysts are underestimating the ability of Republican challengers to defeat Democratic incumbents who are under 50% of the vote. The undecided vote usually goes to the challenger. A host of Republican insurgents with limited name recognition are running behind their Democratic incumbent adversaries because voters don't know who they are. But, if the incumbent is failing to win a majority of his district, these voters will likely vote for the challenger when they learn his name as the campaign unfolds.
Taken together, these flaws in polling and the widening range of Republican capabilities should militate for readjusting GOP sights to aim at more Democratic districts and races that once seemed impossible. Over confidence is not our problem. A lack of belief in our potential is.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on October 4, 2010
Just as when the Republican establishment wrote off Scott Brown's effort to capture "Ted Kennedy's" seat in the Senate, the Washington Republicans may be under estimating the number of seats the GOP can capture in the House of Representatives.
Over confidence is not a danger. Everybody is working as hard as they can to elect Republicans all over America. Nobody is apathetic on the right. The only indifference and passivity in the nation is on the left. But under confidence - writing off seats that we can win - is a huge obstacle to further progress.
The swath of destruction Obama has cut through our economy, banking system, manufacturing base, and medical profession is so broad and ugly that Republicans and Independents everywhere are determined to end his mandate by electing a Republican Congress in 2010. Seats that Republicans had no chance to win in previous elections are suddenly in play. With scores of Democratic incumbent Congressmen polling at under 50% of the vote, the possibilities for Republican gains are enormous.
But Republican funding and tactical focus is having a hard time keeping pace with the political developments on the ground. Handicappers like Cook Political Report are slow in switching their predictions quickly enough as the Republican wave sweeps through the nation. GOP national committees and PACs run the risk that they will concentrate too much money on races that are already won, leaving opportunities to rot on the vine in other districts.
This process of under estimating the chances for Republican victories is fed by two mistakes in polling methodology - and one in survey analysis -- which are understating Republican chances in the coming elections.
While most pollsters survey only likely voters, their screens to determine who will vote are too porous, letting through many who will not actually make it to the polls. Most surveys simply ask if voters are likely to participate or not rather than asking how enthusiastic the survey participant is about voting. Rankings based on enthusiasm and intensity - sure guides to actual turnout - are generating far more Republican samples than those that are ultimately published.
And many pollsters are weighting their data so their samples conform to traditional party distribution. When their samples yield too many self-described Republicans and too few Democrats (as measured against historic norms) they weight down the Republican interviews and weight up the Democratic ones to adjust. But, in reality, they are obscuring the very findings of their surveys. Voters are becoming more Republican and Democrats are becoming Independents. These trends are hard to spot when data is weighted.
Finally, in assessing the meaning of the polls, analysts are underestimating the ability of Republican challengers to defeat Democratic incumbents who are under 50% of the vote. The undecided vote usually goes to the challenger. A host of Republican insurgents with limited name recognition are running behind their Democratic incumbent adversaries because voters don't know who they are. But, if the incumbent is failing to win a majority of his district, these voters will likely vote for the challenger when they learn his name as the campaign unfolds.
Taken together, these flaws in polling and the widening range of Republican capabilities should militate for readjusting GOP sights to aim at more Democratic districts and races that once seemed impossible. Over confidence is not our problem. A lack of belief in our potential is.
McDowell's Continuing Silence
Deafening on Tax Cut Extensions
Benishek challenges opponent to speak up on key economic recovery issue
IRON MOUNTAIN, MI – Dr. Dan Benishek, candidate for Congress in Michigan's 1st District, again challenged his opponent to let the voters know where he stands on extending the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003.
According to a recent news report, "[I]f returning lawmakers don't pass legislation by Dec. 31, the expiration date of the cuts, tax rates would rise not only on income, but also on estates, capital gains and dividends. Democrats abandoned plans to vote before Election Day on extending Bush-era tax cuts..."[1]
"Letting these tax cuts expire in a recession is political malpractice by the Democrat-controlled Congress. By abandoning a vote before November 2nd, Washington is saying that playing politics is more important than job creation, and Gary McDowell seems to have nothing to say about this," Dr. Benishek asserted.
Dr. Benishek added, "Now the only recourse to avoid an across-the-board tax increase will be a 'lame duck' session after the November election. Voters deserve to know from Mr. McDowell if he thinks Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat leadership team deserve to stay in place after this act of irresponsibility."
"Citizens are looking for Congress to focus on policies that will increase the chance for more private sector jobs. It is my sincere hope that, when January 1, 2011 arrives, we will not be facing an across-the-board tax increase for most Americans — a disaster if this Congress is serious about bringing America out of this recession," concluded the life-long Northern Michigan resident.
The Chief Economist at a prominent economic analysis firm, Moody's, stated, "The uncertainty of not knowing what tax rates will be just a few months from now is adding to the collective nervousness."[2]
A family of four with a yearly household income of $50,000 would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011, according to an analysis by Deloitte Tax, LLP, a tax consulting firm. The same family making $100,000 a year would see taxes rise by $4,500.[3]
Passed on by CJ Williams:
----- Original Message -----
From: rlbidwell Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 6:41 AM
Subject: Points To Remember On Election Day
The Day the Democrats Took Over
by KEN Risley on SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
The day the Democrats took over control of Congress was not January 22nd 2009, but two years earlier on January 3rd 2007. They took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. This is when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House (2nd in line for the Presidency), and Harry Reid became Majority Leader of the Senate.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
At the time (January 3rd, 2007):
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember the day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dod took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco's!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA.
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie???
OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.
So when someone tries to blame Bush…
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel – they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!
So, as you listen to all the commercials and media from the Democrats who are now distancing themselves from their voting record and their party, remember how they didn't listen to you when you said you didn't want all the bailouts, you didn't want the health care bill, you didn't want cap and trade, you didn't want them to continue spending money we don't have.
I'm not forgetting who is truly to blame, and I'll be voting accordingly!
--
If everyone knew all there is to know, they would not do half the things they do, including myself, therefore I must foregive them, including myself.
Club4Growth: Help! Liberals on Attack in Wisconsin: #WISen #WIGop Cand. Johnson lead brings MoveOn funding to Feingold.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
