The American people are boiling  mad - they have finally awakened to the reality of the Democrats' agenda for America: Liberal Fascism. After all of the phony rhetoric about "safety nets" and "helping the poor" is stripped away, we are left with nothing less than a brazen attempt by the Neo-Communists in the Democratic Party to replace our Constitutional representative government with Soviet-style central control.

It began with the establishment of the modern welfare state by FDR, who acted not unlike a third world dictator in ramming through his "New Deal" - a bad deal for America. It was drastically expanded in the 1960s by Lyndon Johnson with his "Great Society" programs. Then came Medicare and Medicaid, the first federal government takeover of the health care system. Followed by numerous state versions of the Federal programs, all of which amount to little more than medical welfare.

And until now, there has been little resistance - why would there be? After all, who doesn't like "free" stuff? And remember that unlike your father's Democratic Party, which prided itself in being the "party of the working man," the Democratic base today is made up mostly of those on government assistance programs, and the army of government social workers who administer them. The biggest supporters of Democrats today are government unions.

But when the Democrats pushed through legislation that mandated what kind of light bulbs people can use in their own homes, real, working Americans took notice. Worse, the excuse for much of this government intervention in the private economy had been so-called "global warming" - and even that has begun to crumble, as real scientists expose the fraudulent "science" that was used to con the public.

The first step of the Obama administration was the disastrous "Stimulus" program - a Trillion dollar spending spree that will doom your children and grandchildren to suffocating debt.  Then came the "bailouts" - the takeover of banks, General Motors and Chrysler. Americans began to notice what was going on - and they didn't like what they saw.

But the latest attempt to expand government control of the health care and insurance industries has really hit home. Most Americans today understand the ramifications of such a takeover. Because unlike in earlier times, when the establishment media controlled what you heard, the rise of alternative information sources like Talk Radio, the Internet, and FOX News has contributed to a new awareness of what's really happening - at least among those who are paying attention.

So Obama and the Democrats had better think twice before they ignore the majority of Americans and pass their massive socialist health care initiative. Americans are watching. And using the cowardly and underhanded method of  "deeming the bill passed" will not shield Democrats from the wrath of voters come November.

Because, while it may have been a great strategy for Obama to use when he was a state legislator in Illinois, voting "present" no longer works...

"The urban core has suffered white flight post-the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. the Board of Education, blockbusting by the real estate industry, redlining by banks and other financial institutions, retail and grocery store abandonment."

"In 1985 a federal district judge took partial control over the troubled Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) on the grounds that it was an unconstitutionally segregated district with dilapidated facilities and students who performed poorly. In an effort to bring the district into compliance with his liberal interpretation of federal law, the judge ordered the state and district to spend nearly $2 billion over the next 12 years to build new schools, integrate classrooms, and bring student test scores up to national norms."

The judicial branch [monstrously exceeding their Constitutional authority] ordered the legislative branch to spend money, and told it exactly how to do it.

"Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil -- more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal.  The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country."

"The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration."

"Kansas City's public school district has become the first in the nation to lose its accredited status by failing all Missouri's performance standards, and could be abolished unless it improves, officials said Wednesday."

When Tom Hanks recently made the absurd comment that the Pacific theater of World War II was about "racism and terrorism" he almost put himself in the same category as the insufferably moronic Sean Penn. Hanks further hurt his own credibility when he suggested that the "kill 'em all" mentality of World War II sounded "familiar" today.

What Hanks actually meant is anybody's guess (perhaps we should ask Michael Moore), but implicit in Hanks' view is the idea that America is the "Big Dog" -  the "bully" of the world. The Left invariably sees the United States as the modern day equivalent of the biblical giant, Goliath, shaking the Earth with our footsteps, trampling everything in our path.

Time and again we hear liberals rant about America "forcing its values" on the rest of the world. Just the other day I heard a liberal fellow claim (without any specific examples, of course) that "America's foreign policy is simple - we just go into a country and tell them they have to work with us...if they don't, we send in the troops."

But America represents only 5% of the World's population - we are literally dwarfed by China's 1.5 BILLION people. Even India is almost FOUR TIMES the population of the United States. And both of these countries are fast becoming the economic powerhouses of the 21st Century. America's economic success has only been due to our historically high productivity - not our size.

America is very much like David in one other key way - in the area of defense, we make up for our small size with superior military technology. David used the superior technology of his time - the sling - to vanquish the far bigger and stronger Goliath. Without our state-of-the-art military technology, America would be swatted like a fly by a country like China, which is capable of fielding a standing army nearly equal to the entire population of the United States.

It is legitimate to criticize ourselves for the decisions we have made as a nation, but make no mistake, in a world ruled by power and force, America is far closer to a "David" than it is to a "Goliath."

The issue, according to the bill's proponents, is that private citizens who attend the shows are able to buy and sell firearms from each other without such a check. Gosh, sounds like a big problem, right? One can just see the legions of inner city gang members lining up to get into every gun show in America, cash in hand, ready to bid on a cornucopia of "deadly" weapons. Obviously, "something must be done" to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable." Would that it were truly possible, but, alas, it isn't.

Because there are a couple of annoying facts that keep intruding - reality is such an inconvenient devil when one is on an ideological mission. First of all, study after study of violent offenders has shown conclusively that they do NOT get their guns from gun shows. The BATF itself notes that a paltry 0.7% of all guns used in violent crimes ever even started out at a gun show (and even these were seldom bought by the felons themselves - many were bought legally and then later stolen).

But wait, if the thugs are demonstrably not getting their guns at gun shows, why then the obsession with regulating them? Because, they say, some criminal or mentally unstable lunatic just might one day get a gun from such a show. To "prove" the existence of this "looming threat" the supporters of the "gun show" bill brought out "hidden camera" videos of people buying guns at a gun show without going through a background check. Nice for a sound byte on the evening news, but hardly compelling evidence for a new law.

Naturally, the anti-gun contingent also brought along the same crew they always have at such hearings - the Police Officer who somberly talks about "guns on the street" - the sad mother whose daughter was murdered by an estranged husband (complete with a framed picture of the daughter displayed on the desk) - the "sensible" hunter type who holds up a "scary" looking rifle - and of course, a couple of parents from one of the worst, most crime-ridden neighborhoods in Minneapolis, who told of gunfire on a nightly basis, and children caught in the cross-fire between rival drug gangs.

But alas, one of the antigun testifiers betrayed their real agenda when he admitted that gun shows were only the "first step" and that "ideally, we would like to require background checks on all gun sales, even between private parties" - a move that would be yet one more expansion of big government looking over the shoulder of every legitimate gun owner, tracking and recording what guns they own, buy, and sell.

Such sweeping surveillance of Americans may sound just fine to those who hate and fear guns, but it would have no affect on violence. Because, even if the state enacted a law that requires a background check on every single private sale of firearms, not just at gun shows, but everywhere, the bad guys always have one card left to play: the "straw purchase" - where they enlist someone with a clean record (usually a gang member's girlfriend) to buy the gun for them. They already do this now, and there is no foreseeable way to stop it, other than vigorous prosecution of those who sell to criminals and the mentally prohibited - participating in a "straw purchase" is already a felony.

But even when they are caught, the system doesn't do much to them. Some might remember the case in 1996, when a young woman came in to a Minneapolis gun store, passed the background check, and bought a handgun. She then came back three weeks later and bought two more guns. When she came back a third time, the dealer became suspicious and notified the ATF, who placed a hidden camera in the store, and recorded her purchases of 22 handguns over a period of 9 months.

Then, after 4 of the guns turned up in murder investigations, she was finally charged and convicted. Her "punishment" was to be given 18 months in jail, but with early parole she was back on the street in less than a year.  Think about that - this woman essentially aided and abetted the commission of at least 4 murders, and yet she spent less time in jail than a petty thief might expect.

But what about those "mentally ill" types we hear about? Surely they will be stopped by a background check. Well, once again, reality is less comforting. The obviously disturbed Virginia Tech shooter bought his gun completely legally, at a gun store, where he passed the background check, as such people often do. And why? Because first, many states have privacy laws prohibiting access to mental health records, and second, the vast majority of people with mental problems have never been treated - so any background check will be useless.

 

Besides, even the mentally ill who do have a record of mental problems can find a friend to act as a "straw purchaser" for them - which is exactly what the Columbine shooters did. Just like gangbangers in Minneapolis or any other major American city, Harris and Kliebold simply found a girlfriend to buy their guns for them. And even if a background check were to have been conducted on her, she would have passed with flying colors.

 

But, hey, let's keep focusing on those guys at the gun shows - that'll surely make a difference...and when it doesn't, well, there's always that next step...and the next...and the next...

 

 

 

One would think that as the city that was the epicenter of the disastrous results of Prohibition (the rise of Organized Crime), Chicago would understand the futility of such measures. Yet in spite of the failure of even nationwide bans on everything from alcohol to "assault weapons" to drugs, and the failure of local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C. and other major American cities, I predict that the anti-gun, anti-self-defense crowd will respond by demanding...you guessed it - more gun bans. - Ed

chicagotribune.com

Chicago's pointless handgun ban

City gun ordinances proved to be a failure

March 4, 2010

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune

Normal, sensible people are continually confused by the arguments of their liberal friends. Part of the problem is that while American liberals appear to use the same English language as the rest of us, what they mean by those words varies dramatically from the definitions that appear in Webster's dictionary.

Some examples:

"Investment" - Government Spending - Whenever a liberal talks about "investments" (as in "we need more investment in Public Education") what they really mean is "more government spending." But calling for an increase in spending would inevitably cause the tax paying public to take notice, especially in recessionary times. So it's relabeled as "investment" - how comforting.

"Revenue Enhancement" - A Tax Increase. Liberals always use lovely sounding euphemisms for "raising taxes" - and even when they do admit to raising taxes, they invariably tell the poor and middle class that they are only taxing "that other guy over there." Obama's false claim that his disastrous "Stimulus" spending bill would cost "only the top 5% of Americans" is a good example (See "Social Justice" below).

"Social Justice" - Just another way of saying "taking money from those who produce and giving it to those who don't" - (i.e. parasites and bums - otherwise known as "the Democrat base"). This one has nothing to do with the concept of Justice as it is understood by most, but no matter, there are now dozens of left-wing lobbying groups that have inserted the word "justice" into their organizations' names. My favorite is those who claim to be for "environmental justice," defined (by them, not me) as the "equitable distribution of resources" (see below).

"Equitable distribution of resources" - Taking from those who produce to give to those who don't. You see, it just isn't fair that some people (or states, or countries) just happen to have more oil, or more coal, or more of anything than any other group. Government (read "Marxist") redistribution is at the heart of just about every liberal initiative in the last 75 years. Just remember that they, not you, will determine what "equitable" means.

"Environmental Racism" - This truly ludicrous concept says that because so many poor people and minorities just happen to live in large urban areas (where not surprisingly, most power plants and other infrastructure are also located) they are thus "victims" of "environmental racism" - they are "unfairly environmentally burdened" by "health hazards" associated with "polluted, industrialized areas" chosen for such facilities. Apparently, if we only build power plants and power lines where no one lives (or at least where mostly white people live), then they would be less "discriminatory." Only a liberal could find "racism" in the location of a utility company.

"Fairness" - The equal distribution of misery. A corollary to "social justice" - to a liberal it isn't "fair" that one person has more than someone else. Now, Conservatives believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity for success, but they also know that some will succeed and some will not. But Liberals prefer to believe that if anyone achieves more than someone else, it must be due to "chance" or "luck" (see below). They hate admitting that some people are simply smarter, harder working, more daring, and more productive than others, because to do so would make it harder to justify "spreading the wealth" - the trouble is, it isn't his money he's spreading - it's yours (if you're a tax payer, that is).

"Winners of life's lottery" - How liberals describe successful people. Because portraying smart, successful, hard working people as merely "lucky" allows liberals to defend their taking the money from achievers ("it's not like they actually earned it...") so they can give it to the "less fortunate" - see below). They like it even better if they can persuade you that "those rich guys" got where they are by "taking advantage" of some "less fortunate" group - usually minorities or "the poor."

"The less fortunate" - What liberals call anyone who is a non-productive parasite. Portraying the recipients of government hand-outs as "victims" of circumstance allows liberals to justify giving them the money they took from those who actually worked to earn it. Her life isn't a disaster because she's a high-school drop-out, crack-addicted, part time hooker with three out-of-wedlock kids and a drunken, dope-smoking ex-con boyfriend - nooooo, she's just "less fortunate" than you.

"Selfish" - Anyone who simply wants to keep the money they worked to accumulate. For liberals, no matter how much the American people give personally (more than any other country on Earth, by the way) if you oppose yet another increase in your income tax, especially if the purpose is to fund some destructive government welfare program, then to a liberal, you are "selfish."

"Greedy" - Anyone who accumulates more money than a liberal thinks they should have. Interestingly enough, liberals have never explained why it is "greedy" to want to keep the fruits of investing your own time, money, and energy in growing a business, but not "greedy" to demand that your fellow citizens send you a welfare check every month, pay for your food stamps, provide you with subsidized housing, free health care, and put your kids through school.

"The Rich" -  Anyone who makes more money than a liberal. Now used by liberals as a pejorative. We used to admire the wealthy and successful. But liberals have learned that by demonizing achievers, they could promote envy and jealousy in the electorate - thus justifying outrageously high tax rates on "the rich" in order to subsidize non-achievers. Never mind that taxing "the rich" inevitably hits the poor worst of all, since it is the successful entrepreneurs (a.k.a. "the Rich") who produce virtually all private sector jobs.

"Big" - Bad. As in "Big Oil," "Big Insurance," "Big Pharma," ad nauseum. Putting the modifier "Big" in front of any industry, organization, or group is designed to make you believe they somehow by simply being large and successful they represent a sinister threat - in spite of the fact that most of the "Big" industries slandered by liberals are the very ones responsible for our unequaled standard of living.

"Tax Breaks" - Whenever the government steals slightly less money from private citizens and corporations than they did before. Oddly, liberals believe that giving taxpayers' money to bums who haven't paid any taxes in decades is not a "break." Again, this is just another way of duping the poor and the middle-class. Liberals hate the thought of those paying the top tax rates having their taxes reduced, but fully support giving people who are already paying almost no taxes at all yet another "tax cut" - as a result, we are already at a stage where the top half of workers pay 97% of the income taxes, and the bottom half pays only 3%. In liberal-speak, that's called "fair."

"Balanced Budget" - Raise taxes. Liberals never attempt to balance a budget the way any family or business does - by reducing spending. No, their "solution" is always to raise taxes. Because to cut spending would involve Democrats alienating their core supporters - those on government subsidies, and the army of government workers who exist to administer the hand-out programs.

"Lobby" - Two or more people who disagree with a liberal position. For example, opposition to intrusive government gun control is always attributed to "the gun lobby" - not the millions of individual citizens who don't want the ATF knocking on their door. Don't want government run health care? Why, you must be part of (or at least a dupe of) the "insurance lobby."

"Right" - Anything a liberal wants. From "free" health care to "gay marriage" - if liberals think it is a good idea, it is ipso-facto a RIGHT. Thus we even have groups claiming "Welfare Rights" - are they kidding? A "right" to welfare? But declaring something a right makes it possible for liberals, who have failed time and again to convince a majority of their fellow citizens through their legislative representatives, to instead just run to the Courts and demand that judges give them what legislators won't, on the grounds that whatever it is that they want is not merely a disire, but a right.

"Racism" - Disagreeing with anything Barak Obama says, does, or proposes. Also covers opposition to tax increases, outrageous government spending, bailing out of corporations, a government takeover of health care, or just about any other insane policy pushed by liberal Democrats.

More to come...

No sooner had disgruntled Joe Stark crashed his light plane into a building housing the IRS than the liberal propaganda machine revved up. Left-wing media scrambled to link the deranged man with legitimate citizen's groups like the "Tea Party" movement - the headline on Google shrieked:

"Tax Protester Crashes Plane Into IRS Office"

Now, when you read the dead man's suicide letter/manifesto, it is clear that he had a whole host of frustrations - many of which would be all too familiar to most Americans. But his rambling prose also uses just about every buzz-phrase from across the political spectrum - it is impossible to categorize him as either "left" or "right" politically. Nor would it serve any purpose (other than to advance someone's agenda).

To use an aberrant act by such a disturbed individual to marginalize those who are peacefully petitioning their government is nothing short of media malpractice. Why, the next thing you know, someone will bring up the left's all-time favorite domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh. Oh, wait - they already have!

When it comes to reporting on violent protesters, the left-leaning media is very selective - they bury stories that reflect badly on those who share their views, as they did in the case of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber - even today, how many people still don't know that Kaczynski was a far-left, anti-corporation, anti-capitalism, militant environmentalist?

And more recently, we have the example of an obviously left-wing socialist university professor going on a shooting rampage at the U of A in Huntsville last week. And despite the fact that numerous acts of violence from her past have now come to light, including the shooting of her own brother in 1986, the liberals at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al have not made ANY connection between her violence and her political views. Heavens, no!

Even when forced to report on the violent left-wing mobs who go on rampages against the WTO both here and in Europe, the media manipulators ignore their Marxist rhetoric, and instead label them "anti-government," attempting to link them with those who oppose excessive taxation and overarching government, whom they also like to describe as "anti-government." But this is a false charge; the anger today is against excessive government, not government per se.

I'm surprised the New York Times hasn't suggested that Mr. Stark was a member of some "right-wing militia" - Ooops! They've already run that flag up the pole - just this past week the androgynous metro-sexuals at the Times have declared that the real threat to America is not Muslim Extremists. Oh, no. It's..."Right Wing Militias"!!

Beside the fact that the number of "militia" members in America is likely smaller than Keith Olbermann's audience, the reality is that the vast majority of violence in America over the past 50 years has come from the Left. From the violent Viet-Nam war protesters to bomb-planting anti-capitalists like Obama's terrorist friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, or the aforementioned anti-World Trade Organization thugs, violence has been primarily (though not exclusively) a left-wing phenomenon.

People like the Tea Party members do not engage in anything approaching the violent tactics of left-wing domestic terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front, who have committed arson and sabotage for decades.

Today's backlash against big government and out of control spending is coming from people who are much like modern day versions of Patrick Swayse's rebels in the 1984 movie "Red Dawn." But there is a huge difference - in the movie, a band of young people got together and take up arms to battle Communist invaders - today's "rebels" have gotten together to do non-violent battle with the Communists who have "invaded" the Congress and the Presidency.

All of the fear mongering about "militias" and other such media-driven nonsense will not change the fact that a growing number of Americans have simply "had it" with big government insanity. And trying to take what is a uniquely American tradition - assembling peacefully to express their grievances - and casting it in the same light as "terrorism" by linking it with the insane acts of an obviously deranged individual, is not just factually wrong, it is despicable.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/dec/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2009

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" of 2009

Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: "The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…" The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.
3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full details' of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG." Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed "household help" ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington" list.
5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fund raising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton's scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder's politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to Reuters: "Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.
7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control -- through fiat and threats -- large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: "The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama's "ethics" record -- and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.
8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)
9. [The late] Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military."
10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: "The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently 'wrangling' other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him." Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That's why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

How embarrassing for the liberal establishment elites - one of their own, a university professor, and a woman no less, goes on a shooting rampage on a college campus, killing three people and wounding three others. And over what? Tenure - or should we say, the lack thereof.

As you have no doubt heard by now, a Harvard educated professor, Dr. Amy Bishop, apparently decided that being recently denied tenure by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UNH) was sufficient grounds for her to express her displeasure by walking into a staff meeting and blazing away at a number of her colleagues with a 9-millimeter pistol.

In a macabre sense, her choice of weapon may have been fortuitous for others at the UNH campus. For had Ms. Bishop been carrying the same 12-gauge shotgun she used two decades ago to fatally shoot her then 18-year old brother, the body count may very well have been much higher.

The 1986 shooting was oddly ruled an "accident" - in spite of the fact that Ms. Bishop fired off three separate shots from the shotgun, one into the roof of a bedroom, a second into her borther's chest, and a third shot as she ran out of the house. And according to police who finally captured her (still carrying the shotgun), she also pointed the gun at a motorist as she fled the scene, apparently in a failed attempt to car-jack the vehicle.

Ms. Bishop's highly suspicious behavior aside, my friends in law enforcement have questioned how it is even possible for anyone to "accidentally" fire multiple rounds from a pump shotgun - a weapon that requires manually racking the slide after each shot. "Accident" indeed...

But even more intriguing was the way the case was handled, or, some might say, mishandled. There seemed to have been some "calls made" back in 1986 - calls that, for whatever reason, resulted in an abrupt end to the investigation of the case, without any charges being filed against Ms. Bishop. Does the phrase "influential friends" come to mind?

Which also makes us wonder what interesting new tidbits of information will eventually surface surrounding Dr. Bishop...and what direction the current case will take. Will there once again be "calls made" (by person or persons unknown, of course) that just happen to redound to the  Professor's benefit? Will the mainstream press devote the same time and energy in covering Ms. Bishop's story as they would had the shooter been a conservative businessman instead of a liberal woman professor?

Stay tuned.

You just knew it would happen, didn't you? In a speech to military professionals, Barak Obama recently made a particularly egregious blunder, horribly mispronouncing the word "corpsman" - a military term that is pronounced "KOR-man" - the "p" and the "s" are silent. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the military would know this. You could almost hear the military guests thinking - "did he really just say KORPS-man?"

Such a mistake might be overlooked in a 6th grader with no understanding of military jargon. But for a President of the United States, a man who is supposed to be the Commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces, to show such a complete lack of understanding of such a common military term is simply inexcusable.  Worse, he didn't just do it once, he did it several times, and not only in last week's speech - he used the same annoying mispronunciation on another occasion back in October of last year.

Now, had George Bush made such an error in pronunciation, the howls of criticism would have been deafening - it would have been the subject of endless negative commentary by the mainstream press - complete with raised eyebrows and condescending smirks. But, just like the endless gaffs of Joe Biden, Obama's ludicrous error has been completely ignored (spiked?) by the same press that can't contain themselves from highlighting even the most minor linguistic stumbles of any Republican or Conservative.

Obama's embarrassing butchering of the language was naturally delivered while reading off of his omnipresent teleprompter - Obama even needed the device to deliver a speech to...6th graders. That's right, the "Great Orator" was incapable of talking to a classroom of children without his electronic security blanket. But don't hold your breath waiting for any commentary from the Obamamedia on that one either.

But let Sarah Palin give an address (without a teleprompter, by the way) to the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, and what is the buzz racing through the mainstream (read: Obama owned) media? Are they analyzing Governor Palin's potential run for the presidency? Dissecting her economic policy statements?

Not a chance.

Almost as if they were all reading from the same DNC handout (certainly a possibility) one mainstream reporter after another just had to comment on...the fact that Sarah Palin had a couple of speech notes written on her hand.  Now there's a blockbuster of a story. What nonsense. I know dozens of public speakers who have used the same technique. I've done it myself. And besides, what difference does it make whether one has a few key words on some 3 by 5 cards, or on your wrist? The point is, Palin delivered her speech off-the-cuff, from memory - she didn't read it word for word off a computer screen.

Obama, on the other hand, is clearly lost without his teleprompter - whenever he has found himself in any unscripted situation, Obama stammers, hesitates, hems and haws, and often blurts out something that is not only politically damaging, but reveals something of his real philosophical position - his "Joe the Plumber" moment was a perfect example, where he basically admitted that he truly believes in Marxist socialist principles. Yet no one in the press (other than perhaps FOX news) ever points out his verbal clumsiness, or that his so-called "oratorical skills" are limited to reading speeches that someone else has written. Even though by that standard, any mediocre Hollywood actor could qualify as a "great orator."

But that is the current state of the "Old media" (or, the "Lame-Stream Media" as Bernie Goldberg calls them). They have long ceased even pretending to be engaged in objective news reporting, they are now shamelessly running interference for "their" President, whether covering for his mistakes, or attacking someone like Sarah Palin for something so inconsequential as to be unworthy of even a comment, much less the kind of biased "piling on" that has now become the rule.

In a lame attempt at using humor to make a point, President Obama denigrated Republicans for casting his government takeover of health care as a "Bolshevik plot." Now, putting aside for the moment that you cannot find a single piece of file tape showing ANY Republican using those words, what Obama is really doing is to cleverly cast any opponents of his policies as "fringe" types who should not be taken seriously.

But the fact is, in numerous unguarded moments Obama has shown that he clearly does embrace the Marxist (dare I say, Bolshevik?) view of the world. His "Joe the Plumber" comments were probably the most widely publicized - Obama came right out and said that hard-working entrepreneurs like Joe should be willing to "spread the wealth."

And the Marxist slant of Obama's philosophy was apparent long before he began his political career. Check into his early activities as a "Community Organizer" and you find little more than a garden variety socialist trying to bully private corporations into "spreading the wealth" - their wealth of course, never his.

Obama's own mother was a committed leftist, and for his entire life, he has been surrounded by people who, quite literally, hate Free Market Capitalism, the very foundation of American prosperity. From the likes of Reverend Wright to the home-grown terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Obama has been immersed in the teachings and views of radical far-left activists. Obama still worships at the shrine of the unabashedly Marxist Saul Alinsky (who, coincidentally, was also a "community organizer").

So it should surprise no one, least of all Obama himself, that his policies are seen for what they are - socialism. And attempting to hide the obvious by ridiculing those who disagree with him simply doesn't work anymore. Poll after poll shows a rising tidal wave of opposition to the direction Obama and the Democrats are taking the country - the 2010 mid-term elections are now beginning to look like an outright massacre for Democrats.

We can only hope...

Like a badly skipping CD, Barak Obama seems stuck in campaign mode, endlessly repeating the same hackneyed slogans from his run for the presidency. Obama has made more public appearances in the first year in office than just about any president in history, with most of his speeches being little more than infomercials for his massive spending initiatives and health care "reform" proposal.

Even Obama's first State of the Union address sounded like a continuation of his 2008 campaign, consisting primarily of empty catch-phrases, promises of yet more government giveaways, and of course, continuing to blame the previous administration for the economy he "inherited" - conveniently ignoring the enormous damage done by his own disastrous "Stimulus" program, and the fact that Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since 2006.

But perhaps the most disappointing moment was Obama's unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court - something that should disturb all Americans for several reasons. Because besides the fact that Obama's comment was completely inappropriate in a State of the Union address, the President was completely wrong - not just morally, but factually.

For those unfamiliar with the case, Obama disparaged the court for its recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC, a ruling which restored the right of American organizations, whether corporations, unions, or even groups like Planned Parenthood or the NRA, to make their voices heard right up to election day - essentially, a victory for free speech, and one that in fact benefits the "little guy" as much as anyone else.

But Obama blasted the Court, claiming that the decision would "open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limits in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

One minor problem for Obama - his statement was clearly, and provably, false.

As legal experts, including Capital University Law Professor Bradley A. Smith, have documented, "Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making 'a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election' under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not even at issue in the case."

Professor Smith further points out that "Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and are [also] prohibited from making any 'expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that Obama attacked had nothing to do with the laws regarding political donations by foreign interests, who are clearly prohibited from any direct or even indirect involvement in American elections. Thus President Obama - who is supposed to be a Constitutional "scholar" - is either embarrassingly ignorant of the law, or he is simply guilty of arrogant political deception of the worst kind.

In other words, Obama is either an idiot, or a liar - take your pick.

Time and again the elites in the "political class" have confused Independent voters with so-called "moderates" - as if the terms are interchangeable. Unfortunately, more than a few Republicans make the same mistake - they erroneously think that the way to attract those very important Independent voters is to "move to the center."

This is the kind of thinking that caused Republicans to wind up with a candidate like John McCain, who really is a "moderate" in every sense of the word - he takes a "centrist" position on just about every issue. And "centrist" or "moderate" positions - marked by their "both sides have a point" compromises - end up losing as many of the true Independents as they attract.

Moderates typically think of themselves as "not like those 'extremists' on the left or the right" - they desperately want to feel like they are more "thoughtful" than you and I are. And that they are more "nuanced" in their thinking than the rest of us. They "weigh both sides" and "consider all the options." They may even actually try to convince themselves that they, too, are "independent thinkers."

But the reality is that, after their endless mental gymnastics, most "moderates" seldom take a clear stance on anything. A moderate typically stands with one foot in the boat, and the other on the dock. When it comes to welfare, for example, a moderate will not join conservatives in scrapping the existing system and starting over, nor will they opt for the massive spending increases that liberal Democrats invariably propose - they will instead go with some "middle of the road" approach (a "little bit of socialism" must be OK, right?) so they end up changing nothing.

On something like gun control, the "moderate" will not side completely with the radical gun control fanatics who would love to ban every gun you own, nor will he join those who view their right to own guns the way the Founding Fathers viewed it - as a right that "shall not be infringed." No, the "moderate" voter will go along with so-called "reasonable" gun control (moderates just LOVE thinking of themselves as "reasonable") or agree with attacks on "certain types of guns" (those ridiculous "assault weapons" bans that failed to achieve anything).

But a genuine "Independent" is just as likely to support what most would see as a solidly "liberal" view on something like abortion, while simultaneously vehemently opposing any attempt to infringe on their right to own guns, a position liberal Democrats see as a "conservative" stance. Missing this fact can be politically hazardous.  Time and again Democrats have been burned when they let their party be influenced by anti-gun zealots like Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer. More than a few Democrats crossed over to vote for George Bush when they recognized Al Gore's anti-gun bias.

Another major mistake made by the political pundits is assuming that "moderate" equals "liberal-leaning" - thus they presume that all those "Independents" are more likely to be liberal, or, at a minimum, that they want "centrist" approaches. But more than 40% of all Americans describe themselves as "conservative" while only 19% describe themselves as "liberal." And since independents tend to be more concerned with their personal freedoms than being part of some big government welfare program, it would be logical to conclude that their views would tend to be more conservative than liberal on most issues - and they are.

Nothing brings this point home than the last three special elections, where Independents were critical in electing the more conservative candidate in every case, the most widely felt being openly conservative Republican Scott Brown's victory in one of the most liberal states in the nation, Massachusetts. Surveys of Independents following the "Massachusetts Massacre" show clearly that they solidly oppose just about every initiative proposed by Obama and the Democrats. And remember that Brown also pulled a sizable number of Democrats over to his side.

America is, and always has been, a "center-right" country, and the voters who most clearly illustrate this are the Independents. They don't want big government. They don't want big taxes. They don't want gun control. They don't want repressive legislation like "Cap and Trade" to combat mythical "global warming." And they most certainly do not want Obama's big government takeover of their health care.

So as we approach the 2010 mid-term elections, Republicans would be well-advised to be careful. Because while they have a magnificent opportunity, if they persist in attempting to appeal to Independent voters in the same old way - by becoming ever more "mushy moderates" - they will make a huge mistake, and one from which they may never recover.

If you wonder how disconnected Democrats and their Ministry of Propaganda (i.e. the mainstream media) are, you need only listen to their incredible contortions in trying to "explain" why the American people have soundly rejected government run health care. Obama, of course, blames it on you - like most elitist liberals, he assumes that if you reject his "enlightened" policies, it must be that you're just too stupid to know what's good for you.

Obama lamented not "explaining" his plan more clearly, so that you dunderheads would better understand it. He apparently still doesn't grasp the fact that his socialistic takeover of the health care system was rejected precisely because voters DO understand it. Surveys now show that 77% of Americans oppose his "healthcare reform" - and the more they learn about the hidden taxes, payoffs to unions, and cuts in Medicare that are in the bloated bill, the greater their opposition.

In fact, so great is the anger over Obamacare that even the staunchly liberal voters of Massachusetts ended more than 40 years of Democrat control and elected a Republican to occupy the Senate seat formerly held by ultra-liberal icon Ted Kennedy. Yet Obama himself had the audacity to suggest that Brown was "swept into office by the same forces" that got him elected in 2008! According to Obama, the voters in Massachusetts were so angry at the "8 years" of Republican George Bush, that they elected a Republican in 2010!

But even more interesting was the mainstream media's take on the election of Scott Brown - according to their almost laughable "analysis" of the situation, the voters of Massachusetts elected a Republican candidate who outspokenly ran on the pledge to be "the 41st vote AGAINST the Obama health care plan" because...they actually wanted the Obama health care plan!

Democrat Howard Dean almost came to blows with the nearly hysterical MSNBC talking head Chris Mathews when Dean claimed that the vote for Brown was (are you ready?) a validation of Obama's plan! Even the ultra-left Mathews couldn't believe he was serious, asking Dean "so, what you're saying is that if your candidate wins, the voters wanted healthcare reform, and if your candidate loses, they wanted healthcare reform, is that it? Are the voters crazy?" All Dean could do was to say that "the only crazy person in this room" was Mathews. Now, now, boys, let's not lose our tempers.

Yet liberal media pundits persist in trying to spin the Brown victory, casting it as not being a repudiation of Obama and the Democrat's failed economic policies and expansion of government. Oh, no. In spite of the recent polls showing that the majority of Americans now want less government, the media types assert that the voters in Massachusetts must have been saying that they want even more government!

Each time we think we've heard the most outrageous insanity from the liberals in the Congress and the media, they seem to rise to the challenge and outdo themselves yet again. What's even more confusing is that they can't seem to decide whether:

A) Americans have rejected Obamacare because they are too stupid to understand how wonderful it is

or

B) Americans aren't really rejecting Obamacare - they are actually angry (and voting for Republicans) because is hasn't been passed!

But no matter which version of their personal reality they choose to embrace, as more and more Americans get to the point of being as "mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore" it will be interesting to see when, if ever, they will see the light...or will they remain in their insulated little bubble until they "feel the heat" in November?