GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....


Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF


Monday, August 31, 2009

I Read the Heath-Scare Bill & Obama Is Lying!

Concerned American to Concerned American:

Obama says "I am in the way" of his Health-Scare Bill because I have questions and concerns. Well Mr. Obama I have read your Health-Scare Bill and want to know why you are lying and not telling me what is in the bill. Saying one thing and writing another. Why are you scared, putting my Constitutional Right to Free Speech under attack, suppressing and censoring my concerns?


Who am I? I am an American just like you. Americans in town hall meetings all across the country want to know what Obama the White House and Democrat Politicians in Washington are planning to do to their health.

What am I concerned about? A "government run" public insurance option that will destroy private insurance and the cost every American will pay in increased taxes.

What am I doing? I am on the front line to fight back against the media onslaught that calls Obama a god. We must have free and open communication of all the Health-Scare Bill information without government or government condoned private censorship.


"No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law or politics." - Thomas Jefferson 1792

I do not want a White House with conflicts of interest and a senior advisor to the president David Axelrod making millions from big players in the health care debate. Axelrod's old firm AKPD owes him $2 million, which it's due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. It is currently receiving huge fees "from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA," as well as AARP, the SEIU and others.

Here are a few of the shocking health controls per the Chosen One: Obama:

  1. Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory! He will control your living wills
  2. Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get (Unions are EXEMPTED)
  3. Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice! Government, not you, will decide what health care you are allowed.
  4. PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise Obama wants illegal aliens covered, with YOU paying
  5. Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Only Americans will pay) Illegal aliens get health care FREE.
  6. Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same Government gets to set pay rates-this guarantees fewer specialized doctors, mandating a lower quality of care.
  7. PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing! City of Hope and other cancer hospitals controlled by government--very young and elderly, due to other parts of Obamacare, will be forced to die since they will not be allowed health care.
  8. They will teach you to die. PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens and end of life.
  9. They will stop assistance to special needs children. Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
What type of society in the past operated like this--killing the young, the elderly, and the special needs? This is not health care; it is Obama's version of "A Heath Scare".

"Government has laid its hand on health, housing, farming, industry, commerce, education, and to an ever-increasing degree interferes with the people's right to know. Government tends to grow, government programs take on weight and momentum as public servants say, always with the best of intentions. But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or economically as the private sector of the economy." - President Ronald Reagan

Lagging in the poles and losing support Obama has called for Obamites in local communities to lobby for Socialized and Rationed Health Care.
Obama believes that home is where the radically liberal administration of Barack Hussein Obama is strongest. But Americans do not agree with him or socialized healthcare and the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that not only are Obama's disapproval ratings soaring but support for his health care plan is now less than 46 percent, a new low.

He claims that our grass roots effort to inform all Americans of the true cost of his plan are full of those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform. Obama is not addressing the bold face lies of his plan documented by and instead says you are filling the airwaves and the internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change.

Obama is very nervous that our campaign of truth about the health care is working. He claims that some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous, as well they should. So Obama says he wants his socialist movement to "get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight."

Folks that is what AmeriPAC has been doing all along setting the record strait. We believe you are entitled to know everything in this bill and how much you stand to lose and how much it will cost you.

Be sure you counter Party Obamites, tell everyone the truth about this bad bill, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act and STOP THIS BILL.

But we have a chance TODAY to stop them as well!


More than 88 million Americans could LOSE their private, employer-based coverage, according to a new analysis of "The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" released this week by The Heritage Foundation.

While Obama, Pelosi and Reid insist that "if you like your health insurance coverage, you'll get to keep it," it's now very clear: once again, THEY'RE LYING.

Is THIS "change we can believe in"??? NO -- and that means WE have to take action NOW!

We can't AFFORD Obama's plan to socialize health care in America!
How can anyone in Congress vote for a new entitlement program for health care when Congress has not even begun to face up to this unfunded liabilities problem?
Well, they're trying to -- but WE can stop them, with YOUR help!

We CANNOT let the radical liberals in Congress -- and the White House -- force this plan for socialized health care on the American people! That's why we've set up our website to enable you to send a strong message to every single member of Congress, in both Houses, OPPOSING this outrageous plan.

For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in the U.S. House AND the U.S. Senate, DEMANDING that they REJECT this socialized health care plan NOW!
Can it work? Can we stop Congress from forcing this down our throats, even though the GOP is in the minority?

YES -- thanks to "blue dog Democrats," who are more conservative than their "leaders" like Pelosi and Reid. Already, they've been holding up the bill in committee; now, they're saying that Pelosi might not have the votes she needs in the House! And on the Senate side, thanks to the overwhelming opposition of the American people to this bill, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, was overheard jokingly telling House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, "let me tell you, praying might be helpful here."


Please, take action right away to STOP this bill dead in its tracks!
For more information, click here.
Defend America,

Alan Gottlieb
President and Founder

P.S. America needs health care reform. But new government programs, mandates, and price controls would deny patients control over their most important and personal medical decisions -- and it's "reform" that we cannot afford.

THIS ATTEMPT BY LIBERALS IS OUTRAGEOUS -- and it MUST be stopped! Send your faxes right away to make sure these Senators get a STRONG message, to REJECT the socialized plan of "Obamacare" NOW -- Thank you!



Please make checks payable to AmeriPAC:
American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC)
PO Box 1682
Dept Code 2907
Bellevue, WA 98009-1682

Paid for by AmeriPAC, a federally-authorized and qualified multicandidate political action committee. Contributions to AmeriPAC will be used in connection with federal elections. Maximum contribution per individual per calendar year is $5,000. Contributions from foreign nationals and corporations are prohibited. Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Posted: Daily Thought Pad – Cross-Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

For those of you who have followed our blogs, Daily Thought Pad, Knowledge Creates Power and some others we contribute to have known that these items and more undesirable items are in the health care and associated bills. But those of you who are new readers or who just wanted to believe that it wasn’t so… here it is again from another source, AmeriPac

If you do not want AmeriPac to send your faxes, below is the contact information for you to fax, call and email directly and then mail them out to… so as many legislators as you can!!

No ObamaCare

No Cap and Trade

No Additional Stimulus Bills and Give Us Back Whatever Hasn’t Been Spent

No Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity Bill

No More New Legislation Until we stop the free fall of our Economy

Get Rid of the Czars

No Fairness Doctrine, Localism or any Other Restriction of Radio or TV

Leave Our Freedoms Alone

No Additional Gun Control Legislation

No Cash For Appliances

No Middle Class Tax Increases

Support Our Allies

Fight Our Enemies

Stop Apologizing for the United States

Govern by and Enforce the U.S. Constitution!!

And anything else you want to add…

Call the switchboard for Congress in Washington today... your Senator, your Congressperson and Nancy Pelosi and tell them "NO on ObamaCare, NO on Cap and Trade" & NO on the Carbon Tax!!!

1-202-224-3121- Switchboard - House

1-202-225-3121- Switchboard - Senate

(202) 225-0100 - Speaker of the House Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi or

Info for Senators, Find Senators from your State.

Call the White House at 202-456-1111 & tell President Obama you have had enough!

And if you can Join up with the Tea Party Express as it passes your area:

Join the Tea Party Express

Tea Party Express Tour Schedule

or better yet… See You in Washington D.C. on 9/12

Related Resources:

Should the President Get Emergency Control of the Internet? H_ll No!!

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan


FCC 'Diversity' Chief Asked Liberals to Fight Limbaugh

A top Federal Communications Commission official believes that “progressives” should challenge conservative media moguls like Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch.

FCC Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd made that argument in a 2007 report he penned for the liberal Center for American Progress, CNS News reports.

The article was titled “Media Maneuvers: Why the Rush to Waive Cross-Ownership Bans?” It discusses the FCC’s decision to allow Chicago real estate kingpin Sam Zell to buy the Chicago Tribune.

Lloyd argues that liberals should follow the tactics that President Franklin Roosevelt used to fight concentration of the media in conservative hands, such as then Tribune publisher Col. Robert McCormick.

Lloyd maintains that Zell could mirror McCormick, by joining other conservative media heavies, including Limbaugh and Murdoch, to work against liberals.

“The vast majority of Zell’s political contributions go to support conservative candidates and causes,” Lloyd wrote, as cited by CNS. “Is Zell a modern Col. McCormick waiting in the wings to join forces with Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh?”

Lloyd claimed that the conservative media moguls were in league with the Supreme Court to battle liberals in the government.

“A pro-big business Supreme Court aligned with Murdoch, Limbaugh, and Zell and ready to battle a progressive in the White House begins to sound a lot like the early years of the FDR administration,” Lloyd wrote.

“Will progressives sound like FDR and commit to creating a media policy that actually serves democracy and promotes diverse and antagonistic sources of news?”

Of course it’s difficult to argue that the media is under threat from conservatives when so many newspapers support Democrats on their editorial pages.

And it’s hardly accurate to call Murdoch a doctrinaire conservative. He is famous for allying himself with politicians of all stripes, including Hillary Clinton, to further his business interests.

By: Dan Weil

© 2009 Newsmax - Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:34 PM

Posted: Daily Thought Pad – Cross-Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

Iranian Nuclear Threat Targets U.S., Israel

Concerns about Iran's nuclear capabilities — and their potentially devastating impact on America — are mounting, a special report from Newsmax.TV reveals.

The Islamic republic has test-fired missiles capable of reaching Israel, southeastern Europe, and U.S. bases in the Mideast — and published reports say Iran is within a year of developing its own nuclear bomb.

Security experts warn that even one nuclear device in the hands of a rogue nation could be used against the United States in a devastating electromagnetic pulse attack, an intense burst of energy from an exploding nuclear warhead high above the Earth.

So why isn't the Obama administration doing more to prevent a nuclear nightmare?

“I get very, very nervous about it,” Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter. “I think Iran will have a nuclear weapon. I think now it's only a question of when.”

The United States is caught in the middle of a Mideast faceoff between one of its strongest allies, Israel, and Iran. Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and Israel refuses to rule out a preemptive strike against its adversary, while insisting that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

If the United States tries to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons, its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has vowed a campaign of bloody revenge.

Iran's hatred of Israel “is rooted in ideology,” said Walid Phares of Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The Iranian regime is jihadist, and they do not acknowledge nor accept the idea that a non-Islamic, non-jihadist state could exist in the region.”

Although Iran is thousands of miles from America's shores, its belligerent actions could have far-reaching repercussions. A regional war or nuclear attack could cause an already shaky U.S. economy to collapse.

Even scarier is the growing threat of an electromagnetic pulse attack, security analysts say. Such an attack could destroy all electronic devices over a massive area, from cell phones to computers to America's electrical grid, experts say.

“Within a year of that attack, nine out of 10 Americans would be dead, because we can't support a population of the present size in urban centers and the like without electricity,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy. “That would be a world without America, as a practical matter. And that is exactly what I believe the Iranians are working towards.”

President Barack Obama has committed the U.S. government to a diplomatic approach for resolving the high-stakes nuclear dispute, but Iran has rebuffed Obama's overtures. Meanwhile, Congress is working on legislation to grant Obama the power to impose crippling sanctions on Iran if the talk-first approach doesn't work.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., says such sanctions are long overdue.

“A nuclear Iran is a threat to the Iranian people, to Israel, to the Middle East, to the national security of the United States. And what is Congress doing about it? Nothing. We have proposed legislation time and time again to have real, substantial sanctions leveled against Iran. Now, we like to point fingers and say the U.N. has not done enough, but really we should be pointing the fingers at ourselves.”

The Obama administration has pressed Israel to halt all settlement building and to refrain from attacking Iran, hoping such efforts will lure Iran and other Mideast Arab nations to the negotiating table.

Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, says that sort of approach is wrong.

“[Obama] says Arabs can keep building in the West Bank, Arabs can keep building in eastern Jerusalem . . . but Jews can't. There's no other way to define this than racist.”

Time is running out to stop Iran, Klein says.

“America should say that everything is on the table and we will pursue whatever is necessary – military option, severe sanctions, whatever is necessary to stop these weapons. This is serious business. Al-Qaida has made clear how seriously they can harm American interests, and with nuclear weapons it's just beyond belief the horror that can ensue.”

But some critics are pushing for less intervention.

“Arguing for sanctions against Iran, and threatening them with bombs, or encouraging Israel to bomb Iran makes no sense whatsoever,” said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. “So many other times this argument has been won by pure economics . . . This is what brought the Soviets to their knees – it was financial.”

Others wonder whether the United States missed the perfect opportunity to disarm Iran, failing to take advantage of the widespread turmoil and push for reform that occurred in the aftermath of the country's disputed recent presidential elections.

“Eventually the Iranian regime, if not reformed from the inside, is going to get the nukes, is going to use them in a deterrence fashion, and eventually if there is a confrontation it may use them for real,” Phares said. “This revolt of Tehran may well become another Iranian revolution. Now its success is conditioned by how far the United States and the international community go in assisting this democratic movement.”

The more time Obama devotes to the diplomatic approach, critics warn, the more time Iran has to realize its nuclear ambitions and even sell its technology to other nations or terrorists.

“I think the president's learning a lesson,” Hoekstra said. “I mean, the president was brutal on the previous administration on foreign policy, saying, you know, 'Your policy on North Korea is bad; your policy on Iran is bad.' Everywhere and anything the former president did in foreign policy was terrible [according to Obama], and he was going to come in and fix it. I think he's finding out that foreign policy is hard.”

You can see Newsmax.TV's report on the growing Iranian nuclear threat - Click Here Now

By: Chris Wessling

© 2009 Newsmax - Sunday, August 30, 2009 5:11 PM

Meet Obama’s New FCC Chief Diversity Officer (Distribution of Wealth Czar) Mark Lloyd - He Admires Hugo Chavez & Wants To Emulate Venezuela's Control of Speech & Communication~

FCC Diversity Chief Asked Liberals to Fight Limbaugh

Mark Lloyd is a former senior fellow at George Soros’s Center for American Progress and a consultant to Soros’s Open Society Institute — and his plans at the FCC for equalizing air time for public with that of private radio with Seton Motley with the Media Research Center are frightening.  Lloyd admires Hugo Chavez and his revolution in Venezuela.  Mark Lloyd says that the first amendment (Freedom of Speech) is a distraction; localism is the way to go.

    The FCC’s new chief diversity officer laid out a battle plan two years ago for liberal activists to target conservative talk radio stations, and critics say they are concerned that he now will want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine.”
    But now Lloyd has a plan that is more insidious than the “Fairness Doctrine”.  First of all he realizes that people would watching for that and therefore it wouldn’t pass.

In his June 2007 report, The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, “and a subsequent essay,” Lloyd wrote: “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.”

Fox News quotes Motley:

    Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, said Lloyd instructed liberals to file complaints against conservative stations in “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.”

    “What he lays out is a battle plan to use the FCC to threaten stations’ licenses with whom they do not agree with politically, and now he’s at the FCC waiting to take their calls,” Motley told “This is not about serving the local interest, it’s about political opposition.”

Apparently Hugo Chavez's glorious revolution is something to be admired in the Obama Administration. Obama seems to have no problem having Socialists and Communists in his Administration. So if you take Obama at his word with what he said during last years Presidential campaign, which was that you would be able know how he will govern on any one issue by the people that he surrounds himself with.

So does that mean that Obama will strike up a loving relationship with Hugo Chavez?  (I guess that book sharing moment between Obama and Chavez was no accident.)

Fox continues:

    [Lloyd] said the rise and influence of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts were traced to “relaxed ownership rules” and other pro-business regulation that destroyed localism.

    While he said he was not interested in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, he called for “equal opportunity employment practices,” “local engagement” and “license challenges” to rectify the that perceived imbalance. “Nothing in there about the Fairness Doctrine,” he wrote.

    “The other part of our proposal that gets the ‘dittoheads’ upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.”

Matt Cover at adds that in the report Lloyd “concluded that 91% of talk radio programming is conservative and 9% is ‘progressive.’”

    The report argued that large corporate broadcasting networks had driven liberals off the radio, and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices.

George Fallon writes at RightPundits:

    In 2006 while at the liberal Center for American Progress Lloyd wrote a book entitled, Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America . In the book he presents the idea the private broadcasters (private business) should pay a licensing [fee] which equals their total operating costs so that public broadcasting [stations] can spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. By doing so he hopes to improve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting currently at $400 Million for 2009.

    Not only does he want to redistribute private profits, he wants to regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focus on “diverse views” (Progressive Views) and government activities. I am all for that when I see on PBS a conservative voice next to Bill Moyers. And when I hear a conservative voice on NRP or just voice on NRP that sounds excited with some passion.

    He suggests that large corporate broadcasting networks have driven liberals off of radio. His idea is that having diversity ownership will reflect diversity in programming. That is not true. Liberals drove themselves of radio because they have no ideas except doom and gloom and business owners do not want to be a part of that. Plus broadcast, like primetime television lives or dies based on ratings. Get low ratings and you are off the air.

Fallon gives us this April 26, 2006, video of Lloyd, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former NBC and CNN producer, talking about the death of investigative TV news reporting — and his hopes for building an independent alternative.

Mark Lloyd proposes that conservative radio be taxed 100% of their operating budget, and if  the can’t pay it, their license will be pulled and given to a progressive left-wing station.  Then even if someone would be willing to pay their entire operating budget to run a station, there is a back-up plan, a series of fines to bankrupt the station.  Is this America??

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad – Cross-Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Posts:

Cheney: Serious Doubts About Obama


Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the CIA's aggressive interrogation of terrorists — including techniques that may have skirted the law — by saying it kept the nation safe from "mass casualty attacks" for eight years.  Read more ...

Dancing with DeLay

Posted: August 31st, 2009 11:19 AM ET

A little levity in a pretty scary time in the USA…


Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his dancing partner, Cheryl Burke, practice for his debut on this season of Dancing With The Stars, debuting in three weeks on ABC. (PHOTO CREDIT: ABC)

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross-Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Tea Party Express Is Rolling Along… Huckabee on Economy and Inoffe Says No on ObamaCare – Keep Up the Pressure!


The first stop of the Tea Party Express

The bus has left Sacramento, folks!

Some 5,000 Americans turned out in Sacramento to voice their disgust with the direction the country is headed and the disconnect with the Washington politicians.

Our first stop of Day Two on the Tea Party Express was in beautiful Winnemucca, NV, a small place and the folks there are very nice -- population of about 9,000.

A few hundred folks turned out on a gorgeous day!

And now on to Reno…

The Difference of One Degree

The Difference between hot water and boiling water is one degree of heat.

While that may not seem like much, it's the difference between a relaxing cup of tea... and being able to power a 50-ton steam locomotive up a mountain. The 212 Movie brilliantly illustrates how one extra degree of heat, that one extra degree of effort, can make all the difference in your life!

This short, 3-minute presentation will immediately energize you, focusing your efforts TODAY, while putting you on a path to out-perform, out-earn, and out-deliver in any area you desire... starting now. After watching the 212 Movie, you'll understand how putting forth just one extra degree of effort can put you over the top — no matter what your pursuit in life.

So... please turn up the volume on your PC, get ready to be energized, then click on the following link to watch "212 — The Extra Degree" (or cut and paste into your browser):

Then Turn up your own volume and join the fight for America

No ObamaCare

No Cap and Trade

No Additional Stimulus Bills and Give Us Back Whatever Hasn’t Been Spent

No Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity Bill

No More New Legislation Until we stop the free fall of our Economy

Get Rid of the Czars

No Fairness Doctrine, Localism or any Other Restriction of Radio or TV

Leave Our Freedoms Alone

No Additional Gun Control Legislation

No Cash For Appliances

No Middle Class Tax Increases

Support Our Allies

Fight Our Enemies

Stop Apologizing for the United States

Real Cost of Hope and Change

by The Great American Blog Web Producer

The real U.S. unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday.

"If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent," said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

Click here to read the rest of the article and tune in tonight to hear Mike Huckabee's take!

Do you believe the Obama administration when they say the economy is getting better? If so… why are we now doing Cash for Appliances?


Inhofe slams health reform

At a town hall meeting Wednesday Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told Chickasha residents he does not need to read the 1,000 page health care reform bill, he will simply vote against it.

"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways," he said.

Inhofe said public opinion and information provided by news media have helped him become a staunch non-supporter of the bill. He said he would prefer waiting until after mid-term elections in 2010 to enact reforms. He did not say nothing should be done. He simply feels that a topic as important as healthcare should not be rushed through the Senate or House of Representatives.

City Council Member Hank Ross agreed with Inhofe. Ross owns a medical care company in Chickasha. He said he does not believe the government would be efficient in providing care and would like to see reforms happen at a slower pace.

"I personally think Obama has over reached," Ross said. "I think we need to treat this with kid gloves and do it right."

Inhofe also spoke about the diminishing military budget and the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, but healthcare was the hot button subject.

Inhofe took the opportunity to blame Democrats for a bevy of issues. He lashed out at democrats for overtaking the government and spending billions of dollars on unpopular packages. He said government is becoming too big and overreaching its boundaries.

"People are not buying these concepts that are completely foreign to America," Inhofe said. "We're almost reaching a revolution in this country."

Many in the meeting agreed and were vocal about their disdain for the current climate in Washington.

"No more compromise," Chickasha resident Ed Hicks said. "We're losing our country."

Inhofe's town hall meeting was much like others happening during the Senate's recess. Except there was no dissent, just concerns about change and what is happening in Washington. Health care reform was the main topic of discussion, but some voiced their worries that the Cap and Trade bill would hurt local oil producers. Others were worried about their Second Amendment right and their ability to own and carry firearms.

Inhofe tried to squelch the concerns, but until Republicans take control of at least one branch of the government it will be an uphill battle. He said he will do anything he can to keep fighting and promote the wants and needs of his constituents when he returns to Washington next month.

By Ellis Goodwin – Staff Writer, The Express Star

Sunday, August 30, 2009

HR 3200 (ObamaCare) and Illegals

Just about the time the Center for Immigration Studies was holding a press briefing at the National Press Club about the immigration and health reform connection, proponents from President Obama on down were denying that illegal aliens would receive taxpayer-funded health care under pending legislation.

I’m here to tell you, as I told the Press Club crowd, the legislation on the table does, honest to goodness, effectively extend coverage to illegal aliens.

Take the premium subsidy in the House bill, H.R. 3200. This lies in the part of the legislation (Division A, Title II) that creates a Health Choices Administration, adds the infamous “public option,” sets up and runs the “exchange” clearinghouse for getting insurance, and controls a graduated premium subsidy program through allocation of “individual affordability credits.”

The subsidy, found in Section 242, will give a voucher to people earning between 133 percent of the official poverty level and 400 percent of that income level (or, up to about $88,000 a year for a family of four).

Legal immigrants certainly qualify under H.R. 3200 for this subsidy. Section 242(a)(1) makes eligible "an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)."

A political fig leaf purports to keep illegal aliens from receiving the subsidy. Section 246 says, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

However, reading the legislation as a whole, its glaring omission is any requirement to verify someone’s immigration or citizenship status. For instance, H.R. 3200 makes no reference to the verification system in current law that’s used for nearly all government welfare and other public programs. If lawmakers wanted enrolling agents, including bureaucrats at the new Health Choices Administration, to use the Systematic Alienage Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, the bill should include a reference and authorize SAVE’s application to this government program.

In other words, the silence of H.R. 3200 regarding SAVE and mandatory verification makes Section 246 just empty words. In fact, the Ways and Means Committee outright voted down an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller to require eligibility verification before qualifying someone to receive a taxpayer subsidy. Also, "lawfully present" covers a lot of ground. Does it include someone here under Temporary Protected Status, for instance? Again, the absence of eligibility verification requirements leaves open a lot of room for waste, fraud, and abuse.

A similar situation of setting up blinders occurs in H.R. 3200’s Medicaid provisions. Division B’s Title VII, Section 1701 expands Medicaid eligibility to those with incomes a third above the federal poverty level. This provision dictates that "the State shall accept without further determination the enrollment under this title of an individual determined by the Commissioner to be a non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual." In other words, the bill prohibits asking any further questions about new Medicaid enrollees.

Rather, the bill section promotes "presumptive eligibility" concerning Medicaid expansion. Read it for yourself, right from Section 1702(a):

(ii) PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY OPTION- Pursuant to such memorandum, insofar as the memorandum has selected the option described in section 205(e)(3)(B) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, the State shall provide for making medical assistance available during the presumptive eligibility period and shall, upon application of the individual for medical assistance under this title, promptly make a determination (and subsequent redeterminations) of eligibility in the same manner as if the individual had applied directly to the State for such assistance except that the State shall use the income-related information used by the Commissioner and provided to the State under the memorandum in making the presumptive eligibility determination to the maximum extent feasible. (emphasis added)

And, once again, the lack of any provision mentioning or requiring verification, mandatory use of the SAVE system under this part of the bill, or any other accountability requirement opens the process up to signing up illegal aliens for Medicaid.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, a mandatory verification amendment was voted down when Rep. Nathan Deal offered it. A political fig leaf amendment was added by voice vote, but the loopholes and potential for waste, fraud, and abuse remain wide open in the Medicaid provisions.

Whatever you think of health reform, a combination of things makes it certain that illegal aliens will receive government health coverage. The most obvious is the omission — heck, the outright rejection of corrective amendments — of eligibility verification requirements. The other factor is the designed ease of enrolling people in Medicaid, for "affordability credits," and the like.

Bottom line, the health legislation Congress is considering establishes an "enroll now, don’t ask questions later" regime. That’s a recipe for covering more people, but many of whom may not actually qualify. A huge number are almost guaranteed to be illegal aliens or legal immigrants still in their first five years in the country who are supposed to turn to their visa sponsor for financial support. And having more people in a public program translates pretty quickly into higher costs. In this case, we’re talking on the order of tens and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Please read more, where C

Does AARP Support This?

Heck Yes!! They are busy trying to play both sides of the fence! – Tell AARP Goodbye and Checkout ASA: American Seniors Association


Health Care Bill Requires Free Translation Services

For anyone who still doesn’t believe that ObamaCare intends to cover illegal aliens while rationing elderly Americans and Legal Aliens… check this out: free translation services of non-English Speaking patients?!?

Take Action!

Strike Section 1221 (b) from H.R. 3200

Urgent alert! Please act now!

Health Care Reform legislation now pending in Congress would require doctors and hospitals to provide interpreters and translation services free of charge to non-English speaking patients.

That will add $billions to the cost of health care and give immigrants even less incentive to learn English.

The "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," H.R. 3200, Section 1221 (b) says Medicare health care providers that fail to "substantially provide language services to limited English proficient beneficiaries" face severe fines and penalties.

This is outrageous. Medicare is already bankrupt. Now medical providers also will have to provide free translation services.

Send a free email message to your congressional representatives and demand that they remove entitlements to language translation services from health care reform legislation!

Please "Take Action" now!

And please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to ProEnglish. We receive no government support and depend entirely on voluntary contributions from people like you. Clickhere to make a secure donation online. Thank you!

Posted: Daily Thought Pad – Cross-Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Resources:

Read the Bill - HR-3200 - full report

Breakdown Articles of HR-3200 Bill

All Aboard the Tea Party Express~

Healthcare Reform Foes Using Radical Alinsky's Tactics

Influential Chicago activist Saul Alinsky wrote the book on community organizing for the left.

Now in an ironic twist, opponents of President Barack Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform plans are employing some of the very same tactics that Alinsky, who died in 1972, espoused in his work "Rules for Radicals."

As healthcare reform foes angrily confront lawmakers at town-hall meetings, The New York Times observed: "It is an irony of the current skirmishing about healthcare that those who could be considered Mr. Alinsky's sworn enemies — the groups, many industry sponsored, who are trying to shout down Congressional town hall meetings — have taken a page from his handbook on community organizing."

Among the Alinsky "trademarks" that the Times' Noam Cohen pointed to are "using spectacle to make up for lack of numbers," targeting an individual — in this case Obama — and "using ridicule to persuade the undecided."

As for complaints from Democrats about the reform opponents' sometimes belligerent tactics, Alinsky stated that "any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical."

The Internet availability of many town-hall confrontations would have won approval from Alinsky, who urged activists to seek media attention — in particular by challenging public officials on camera.

The boisterous disruption of the meetings by reform foes also jibes with Alinsky's tactics. He advised organizers to "raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does."

Among the many community organizers influenced by Alinsky, the most prominent today is — Barack Obama. He learned and taught Alinsky's methods for community organizing while working for the Developing Communities Project in Chicago.


To find out how to participate in the Tea Party Express events across the country, CLICK HERE. But be prepared to be called part of a right-wing organized mob!!

The Tea Party Express is meeting up with events and tea parties along its 7000+ mile route from Sacramento to Washington D.C.where people are protesting local issues, ObamaCare, taxes, government spending, stimulus, and the list goes on.

The Tea Party Express will end up in Washington D.C. to meet up with and take part in the National Tax Payer March on 9/12. Glenn Beck was asked to MC the event, but has decided to cover it for Fox Cable News.

Check back daily for updates on the Expresses progress and coverage of National Tax March on 9.12.09. I guess this should count as patriotic service to our Country since President Obama signed a bill last April changing 9/11 from a day to remember the events of 9/11 to a National Day of Service backed by mostly liberal organizations including ACORN, Color of Change and the Apollo Alliance.

See you in Washington D.C. on 9/12 if you can there or along the way at a tea party event. If you can’t be in DC in person, watch Glenn on Fox Cable News live that day from the event.

Ask Marion


We have a little less than one month and counting to get the word out all across this great land and into every community in the United States of America.


On Friday, September 11th, 2009, an American flag should be displayed outside every home, apartment, office, and store in the United States. Every individual should make it their duty to display an American flag on this eighth anniversary of one of our country's worst tragedies. We do this to honor those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families, friends, and loved ones who continue to endure the pain, and those who today are fighting at home and abroad to preserve our cherished freedoms.

In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. Sadly, those flags have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us through some tough times and it shouldn't take another attack to galvanize us in solidarity. Our American flag is the fabric of our country and together we can prevail over terrorism of all kinds

So, here's what we need you to do .

(1) Forward this email to everyone you know (at least 11 people). Take a moment to think back to how you felt on 9/11 and let those sentiments guide you.

(2) Fly an American flag of any size on 9/11. Honestly, Americans should fly the flag year-round, but if you don't, then at least make it a priority on this day.

Thank you for your participation.

God Bless You and God Bless America!

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:

Fighting ObamaCare in the Spirit of Ted Kennedy

Maybe David Brooks has it right after all. Maybe we should indeed use Ted Kennedy's behavior during the Reagan years as our blue print for promoting unabashed and unapologetic conservatism during these, the Obama years. That is not to say that Mr. Brooks knows anything about "unapologetic conservatism," since he spends most of his time apologizing for it -- but we might want to heed his advice none the less.

It is in that spirit that I offer a Kennedy-esque speech against the passage of HR 3200, using most of the exact words Senator Kennedy used in the famous "Robert Bork's America" speech.

KENNEDY: Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to reject it.
WRIGHT: Mr. President, I oppose HR 3200 -- or any similar iteration -- and I urge the Senate to reject it.

KENNEDY: In the Watergate scandal of 1973, two distinguished Republicans - Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus - put integrity and the Constitution ahead of loyalty to a corrupt President. They refused to do Richard Nixon's dirty work, and they refused to obey his order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The deed devolved on Solicitor General Robert Bork, who executed the unconscionable assignment that has become one of the darkest chapters for the rule of law in American history.
WRIGHT: In the first months of the Obama Administration of 2009, blue dog Democrats have considered putting integrity and the Constitution ahead of loyalty to a corrupt President. They have tried to refuse to do the dirty work of Rahm and Ezekiel Emmanuel and they so far are refusing to obey their order to socialize one sixth of the American economy. That deed has devolved on Obama Care, an unconscionable idea that would become the darkest chapter for the rule of constitutional law in American history.

KENNEDY: That act - later ruled illegal by a Federal court - is sufficient, by itself, to disqualify Mr. Bork from this new position to which he has been nominated. The man who fired Archibald Cox does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.
WRIGHT: This act -- which would certainly be ruled illegal by any court actually trying to uphold the Constitution -- is sufficient, by itself, to disqualify Mr. Obama from the new position to which he has been recently elected. The man who holds in contempt the "negative rights" of the Constitution does not deserve to hold the highest office in this Republic related to protecting the Constitution.

KENNEDY: Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of American constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. He opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression.
WRIGHT: Mr. Obama's reform desires should also be rejected by the Senate because it -- and he -- stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of government that places him outside the mainstream of timeless and immutable American constitutional principles. He opposes tort reform. He opposes health savings accounts. He has said that citizens opposing Obama Care are simply political pawns, not genuinely concerned citizens. His beliefs put him in lockstep with the principles of Fidel Castro, who recently called all of us who oppose Mr. Obama and his reforms racists.

KENNEDY: Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most Neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. But his mind-set is no less ominous today.
WRIGHT: Under the twin pressures of common sense rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Obama has subsequently lied about the most Neanderthal of the provisions and unavoidable consequences of Obama Care -- and his mind-set is no less ominous today than it was as he was sleeping through 20 years of Jeremiah Wright sermons.

KENNEDY: Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
WRIGHT: Barack Obama's America is a land in which all of us would be forced to pay for any and all abortions, blacks would sit at ACORN voter registration counters, rogue union thugs could break the teeth of conservative black protesters in mid day raids, school children would be taught to put condoms on bananas, writers and artists getting all "wee weed up" over Crucifix's would be subsidized at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of Americans who dared to attempt to exercise their freedom to take care of themselves, their families, and not need government assistance.

KENNEDY: America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.
WRIGHT: America is a better and freer nation that Barack Obama thinks. Yet in the current imbalance in government, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice and government against the kind of country America is and ought to be -- and was founded to be.

KENNEDY: The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
WRIGHT: The damage that President Obama will do through Obama Care, if it is not rejected by the Senate, will live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Obama is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Chicago pay to play power, reach into the muck of American hating black separatistism, and impose his reactionary view of the Constitution this and the next generation of Americans. No care would be better than Obama Care.

There. I feel better. Thanks David Brooks for the inspiration. I agree with you. I think we should handle ourselves during the Obama years exactly like Ted Kennedy handled himself during the Reagan years.

By C. Edmund Wright

Hat tip: Rush Limbaugh

Source: American Thinker


Let’s Win One for Teddy,' Say Dems Pushing for Health Reform

Key Question Is Whether Kennedy's Death Can Rally Fellow Democrats

Democrats are hoping that the memory of Senator Ted Kennedy will revive the Democratic Party's flagging push for health care reform. "You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News. Democrats are hoping that Kennedy's influence in death may be even stronger than it was when he was alive as they push for President Obama's top domestic priority. Democratic officials hope that invoking Kennedy's passion for the issue will counter slippage in support for heatlh care reform.

The idea of naming the legislation for Kennedy has been quietly circulating for months but was given a new push today by Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the only person who served with Kennedy for all his 47 years in the Senate.

"In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American," Byrd said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Health, Education and Labor Pensions Committee chaired by Kennedy, has been the panel's point person on health-care reform in Kennedy's absence. Today Dodd said that he hopes Kennedy's death will revive a spirit of bipartisanship.

Sen. Ted Kennedy worked hard to pass health care reform legislation.

"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News.

Democrats are hoping that Kennedy's influence in death may be even stronger than it was when he was alive as they push for President Obama's.

Let us not forget that Ted was on the losing end of major legislation all his life because he was the ultimate extreme liberal, and part of the reason he was so good at compromise is because he had no choice. He was out of the mainstream and had to reach across the aisle to get at least something passed! As Dick Morris said, “It was/is good to have one Ted Kennedy just to give you a measuring stick or compass point of reference… Ted was as far left as you could get. However, that point has now been moved even further out with President Obama, his Team and the unbridled Nancy Pelosi.

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Related Resources:
The Facts Didn't Change - Don't Let Them Play the Ted Card!!!