Republican's Balk at ACORNs in the Recipe

Republicans have been balking at Democratic propositions on fixing the economy, and the main reason has finally come to light. There has been a taint of ACORN in the original propositions.

Republican protests that any propositions forwarded for consideration in the "bail-out" discussions have a root cause to them. Original proposals included a plan for some of the profits earned by the governmental loaning of funds to financial institutions to go to ACORN, a group closely associated with the Democratic party that does work to ensure Democrats are elected to office. Republican opposition members issued a statement on Saturday expressing their outrage at such inclusion on the part of the Democrats, outlining the reasons they would not support any proposal including monies allocated for ACORN.

In issuing the statement, House leaders are reflecting -- and also feeding -- a reaction to the provision that has exploded in the last day or more. Our colleague Ben Smith says he's gotten more than a dozen anti-ACORN e-mails in just the last few hours. The viral uprising is both organic and institutionally driven. Prominent bloggers have fed the flames and so has the Wall Street Journal editorial page; several of the e-mails sent to Smith reference a House leadership alert on the "ACORN Slush Fund" and others refer to the Journal opinion. On Thursday night, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Crypt that his friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opposes the provision.

"The draft bill includes a left-wing giveaway that would force taxpayers to bankroll a slush fund for a discredited ally of the Democratic Party," reads one leadership alert. "At issue is ACORN, an organization fraught with controversy for, among other scandals, its fraudulent voter registration activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Rather than returning any profits made in the long-term from the economic rescue package, Democrats want to first reward their radical allies at ACORN for their (often illegal) help in getting Democrats elected to office."

In the end, how much of the bailout's potential profits are earmarked for ACORN? "None. Absolutely none. All funds would go to state and local governments," said Steven Adamske, spokesman for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and a lead negotiator.

A proposal rife with the possibility of more corruption, more mismanagement, and more mishandling of money, proposed by the democrats? But how can this be, out of the party that had promised that if elected to majority status in 2006 it wouldn't be "politics as usual?" So far, and especially in light of the most recent situation regarding the financial market, that has been exactly what the majority party has given the American people. Despite this shady and underhanded attempt by Democrats, Nancy Pelosi has deemed to accuse Republicans of being "unpatriotic."

Fortunately, perhaps, all references and inclusions of ACORN in the Democratic proposals have been removed from their offerings, as shown in a side by side comparison of proposals that have been considered.

The question of the Constitutionality of the entire process has still not been answered completely, in the minds of many Americans. One can look throughout the contents of the Constitution and be hard pressed to find anything regarding the nation's economy, other than powers of levying taxes and tariffs and the responsibility of Congress to mint the nation's money.

We have reached, perhaps, a cross-roads, as a nation, one in which it must be decided whether to remain a free-market nation, or one that begins to turn a hard turn to socialism. The efforts of the Roosevelt administration during the great depression put the United States on the road to a quasi-socialistic state of economy that the nation has existed under ever since, growing the government larger and more intrusive into the lives of the American citizenry by leaps and bounds with each passing year.The current economic crisis, if not handled carefully and with cool heads, could change the scope of not only the American economy in coming years, but the very structure under which we, as a nation, exist. Socialism, the control of business and industry by the state, and capitalism can not exist side by side under the same roof. If the past nearly 70 years has not shown that, nothing will.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Sex, Lies, and Denial of a Socialist Agenda

Oil prices have continued to rise daily, with each rise marking a new record for high fuel prices around the world. The blame has been tossed about from one party to the next, but certain Democrats are suddenly backtracking from some of their statements.

Imagine how you would feel as a business owner if the government decided one day that it needed to nationalize your industry. Suppose, for example, that some politician, in cahoots with a group of bureaucrats, decided that, let's say, the office supply industry was so vital to the American economy that it needed to be taken over by, administered by, and controlled by the federal government.

Suddenly, a few months down the road, changes have to be made. It wasn't enough just to catch the office suppliers, now the government has discovered, after spending tireless hours of research, that it also needs to nationalize the paper industry, the ink industry, and the manufacture of paper clips and staples, because they are all vital suppliers to office supply companies and their survival is vital to the economy. A few more months pass, and the makers of the bodies for ink pens are added in, along with printer cartridge manufacturing and copy machine toner, pencils both wooden and mechanical are added in as well.

Wooden pencils come from trees, so eventually, to ensure the proper flow of pencil products, the timber industry will fall under nationalization as well, which would sub branch out into the building industry, because, as you know, the timber industry supplies the lumber industry and everyone who builds needs lumber, making it a vital part of the American economy as well and therefore in need of regulation. What holds a house together, now that we think about it? Why, that would be nails and fasteners, so naturally those industries would have to be nationalized, and subsequently there would be a nationalization of the metals industries, foundries, machine shops, leading all the way back to the raw materials mined out of the earth to create them.

Tools are used in mining, building, manufacturing, as well, which would make the manufacture of tools vital to the American economy and thus in need of Nationalization.

Need I continue, or have I adequately illustrated the snowball effect (I SO loathe the "slippery slope analogy, personally) that comes of nationalization of an industry? That business alone isn't affected, all suppliers to that industry become affected as well, over the course of time, and before you can say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" nationalization is becoming a national trend. And yes, I spelled that right, I googled it to make sure. I have to say, I was mightily impressed with myself.

I digress.

Last month, Congresswoman Maxine Waters demonstrated that timeless tradition of Socialists when she "outed" herself fully and publicly in calling for a nationalization of the oil industry; step 1, open mouth, step 2, insert foot, step 3, chew vigorously. Her comment did not go unnoticed by another Democrat cum Socialist, Congressman Maurice Hinchey, who chimed in this month saying practically the same thing as Waters, only without the catch of trying to stop himself from saying what he meant.

Link: sevenload.com

In light of the heavy fire that Waters and Hinchey have taken over their statements (Hinchey, doesn't that just sort of sound like a pirate name or something? AVAST, First Mate Hinchey, make ready to be underway!) the Democratic Party has sent out their spin doctors to try to patch up the sucking chest wound that has resulted from two Socialists in their ranks publicly showing their true agendas.

Thomas Fiery, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service that he doubts whether Waters, Hinchey or any Democrats truly support the nationalization ("socializing") of U.S. oil refineries.

"The Democrats in general do no support this idea," he said. "My guess is that neither Waters nor Hinchey really support this idea. They are ducking and covering and saying anything that might get people riled up."

Fiery added that if the federal government were to take over refineries, oil companies would profit. "The people who would be the most happy to hear about the socialization of oil refineries would be ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and all the oil companies because there really isn't much money to be made in refining," he said.

"Historically, there has been close to no profit in those industries at all," Fiery added.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't everyone been complaining because Exxon has reported such staggeringly large record breaking profits per quarter? Or does Mr. Fiery know something that we don't? It is precisely because of the huge profits that Exxon and the other major oil producers are making that Democrats would be interested in nationalizing them. What, 18.9 cents per gallon of profit for doing nothing in the production of gasoline other than imposing a tax upon it isn't enough for the federal government? At 18.9 cents tax per gallon for gasoline, the federal government makes 10 cents more per gallon than the companies that make it possible for you to put it in your fuel tank and drive down the road. And the federal government plays absolutely no role in the production of gasoline.

While Mr. Fiery can go around all he wishes to spouting off how he doesn't think that Waters and Hinchey really believe in the nationalization of the oil industry, one has to wonder and ask, if they don't really believe it, why aren't they out there saying so themselves rather than relying on the Cato institute to say it for them?

Oh, and as to the sex portion of the title, I'm sure that you, the reader, have noticed that there is no mention of sex in this article whatsoever to this point. The truth is, it's been a tried and proven marketing device that sex sells. If the title caught your interest because of the sex part, then you have just proven years of psychological and marketing research correct in participating in this little experiment.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Rubber Chicken Soup and SCHIPS: Dinner Time for Liberal Land

The Democrats were BUSTED OUT this weekend for their use of a 12 year old boy making a pity plea for the SCHIP legislation. The problem? They didn't do their homework, and probably didn't count on anyone else checking either. As WAU showed yesterday, there is something clearly rotten in Denmark on this one.

Couple that with the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine in regards to conservative talk radio, and Hillary Clinton's hiring of Sandy Berger as an "adviser," AND Barack Hussien Obama's removal of the American Flag pin from his lapel, calling it "false patriotism" to wear it, it's been a busy week for the Democratics.

For their efforts, collectively and individually, Wake Up America proudly presents this weeks Rubber Chicken Award to the Democratic Party.


Running a close second, earning a Rubber Ducky Award, are CNN and WAPO, for their stance that "good news is no news" in regards to Iraq.

Keep up the great work, guys!

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Fickle Irony, thy Name is Webb...

It's an amazing thing how our pasts come back to bite us so soundly right square on the ass sometimes. Lord knows I've had things enough from my past come back to haunt my nightmares often enough, things I would have preferred left in the past, buried, forgotten, tucked away safely in their own little compartments where they could do no harm.

The truth of the matter is, the more things we do in the public eye, the more there is to come back to catch us at a later date. And when we say things or do things for no other reason than out of mere political motivation, things done simply to be in contrast with the opposing side, we make of ourselves hypocrites.

Witness the following, and bear ye witness to exactly the sort of political pandering and hypocrisy of which I speak:

The Corner

Friday, August 24, 2007


"The Aftermath of Saigon's Fall Is Rarely Dealt With At All." [Byron York]


An analysis of Vietnam strikingly similar to what we're hearing today, beginning with a discussion of Congress' 1975 decision to cut funding to the South Vietnamese:

This Congress was elected in November 1974, only months after Nixon's resignation, and it was dominated by a fresh group of antiwar Democrats. One of the first actions of the new Congress was to vote down a supplemental appropriation for the beleaguered South Vietnamese that would have provided $800 million in military aid, including much-needed ammunition, spare parts and medical supplies.

This vote was a horrendous blow, in both emotional and practical terms, to the country that had trusted American judgment for more than a decade of intense conflict. It was also a clear indication that Washington was abandoning the South Vietnamese even as the North Vietnamese continued to enjoy the support of the Soviet Union, China and other Eastern bloc nations. The vote's impact was hardly lost on North Vietnamese military planners, who began the final offensive only five weeks later, as the South Vietnamese were attempting to adjust their military defenses.

Read the full article here. The author of this article, not the one today, but the original article? Why that would be none other than Senator James Webb of Virginia. That's right, the same Senator James Webb of Virginia who refused to shake hands with President Bush and berated him about bringing home the troops.

It's almost as if the man was trained under the direct tutelage of a certain Senator from New York who has no political bearing of her own other than to go whichever way the polls lean. Mayhap they're related, for surely this must be some sort of genetic anomaly that causes these people to act as if they have no conscience, no honor, and certainly no valor.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.