About Me

Name: E Frank
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Health Care and AARP and You

Posted by E Frank on Friday, November 06, 2009 9:00:00 PM
I gave AARP the benefit of the doubt when they said they had not endorsed any health care bill even though they had agreed with the Pres on nearly every part of his health care agenda. I strongly object to the Sec of HHS having the power to de-certify Advantage plans and I equally strongly object to the Public Option.
 
Medicare Advantage is one very clear instance where we have private plans providing the same coverage as a govt plan. There is no hue and outcry from the participants. If the insured want to change they can any year in the open enrollment period. The insurance companies aren't objecting, if they did they could stop offering Advantage plans. Who then objects? Obviously the govt.
 
Why? It can't be the cost because they have only a small subsidy of Advantage plans whereas they have the whole costs of their own plan. I have concluded that the only reason the govt wants Advantage plans eliminated is to consolidate control and power in themselves. Mind you their costs will go up!

The Advantage participants will enroll in the govt plan, the only one available, the same one the Pres keeps harping on as way too costly. The program above all others he has singled out for huge cost reductions. Are we not right then to conclude that if there is a Public Option the same thing is likely to happen to private health insurance plans over the course of time?
 
This is a govt with Rahm Emanuel, the President and Nancy Pelosi that is self-centered and power hungry as it is. I do not trust them with more power. And I no longer trust AARP either.  They have sold us out. It seems to me they no longer are directed toward legislation that benefits us but are more interested in selling insurance.
 
This Administration never has had our interests at heart. It has always been their own ultra-liberal agenda they worship. Of course they have rammed everything through that they could because they know that any Pres has just so long a "honeymoon" with the press and the electorate. This one has enjoyed an unusually long one. MSNBC still worships at his door. Keith Olbermann still drools at the very thought of Obama as Pres and still can't help but take shots at Bush.
 
This putrid "it's all their fault" mantra is tiresome. Now Axelrod is blaming all the current problems in Afghanistan on the Bush years, just as he has every crisis in finance, business, banks, etc. Barack Obama labeled Afghanistan as the important war and has pretty nearly forgotten Iraq. Trying to cloak himself in patriotism and concern he met the caskets of the war dead but only one family allowed photos. Bless the rest. Bless them all for their sacrifice but I'm thankful this two faced Pres didn't get the full measure publicity he probably expected and thought he deserved. 
 
Barack Obama draping himself in the flag is way too much to stand and akin to AARP saying they have the interests of Senior Citizens at heart.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's failed foreign policy in Charles Krauthammer's incisive view

Posted by E Frank on Monday, October 26, 2009 8:00:00 PM
Charles Krauthammer scored another brilliant column, this time on the Obama Administration's failing foreign policy. He did miss our disgraveful handling of the Honduran situation wherein we are allied with every two bit dictator/tyrant in our hemisphere but he can't be perfect.  Heeeeres, Charles:
WASHINGTON -- About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award "premature," as if the brilliance of Obama's foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.

 

To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president's various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration -- excuse me, outreach and understanding -- is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.

Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better. Well, at nine months, let's review.

What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.

What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told). China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed."

And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.

But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.

The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?

"Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Washington Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle.

Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.

It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."

But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?

Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.

Henry Kissinger once said that the main job of Anatoly Dobrynin, the perennial Soviet ambassador to Washington, was to tell the Kremlin leadership that whenever they received a proposal from the United States that appeared disadvantageous to the United States, not to assume it was a trick.

No need for a Dobrynin today. The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and "reset" buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Taking It On The Chin

Posted by E Frank on Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:00:00 PM
 
All in all this hasn't been a great week for Barack Obama. It looks as if Health Care Reform is going to be a battle down to the wire and it's likely to be Dems that are in the battle just as much as Repubs. The biggest thing seperating the Dems is the Public Option. A number say they won't support it without a PO (Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer for example), and a number who won't support it with a PO (think Blue Dogs). Most, if not all, Repubs won't vote for it with the PO. Oh, Barack might get the ladies from Maine but that's even questionable. A lot depends on what the reconciliation committees will do when the final House and Senate Bills come to them. Will they be inclined to friendly bartering to arrive at a consensus Bill or will they get hard as rock and no Bill will come out? The Pres has that to face in light of  increasing public skepticism.
 
Then there's the licking he just took in Denmark. His speech was a poor one. There was too much ego, too much disparagement on the US (a continuing trend of his) to really put a positive, fun filled spin on it. He's been hopping all over the world since becoming Pres with that idea of talking to everybody and admitting out failings and describing a new order in the USA. We came in dead last. The first country tossed out of consideration. We sent the Pres in his 747 over there with its back up plane. Michelle Obama rode in a 787 and had another for the entourage. Lot of money down the tubes. I can't remember when a President spent so much to help a state get an Olympics. Can you? BO even went so far as to hire an Olympics and Sport Adviser (Czar). What has he gotten back for it? NADA!
 
Iran still isn't fully cooperating. Oh yes, they sat down and admitted the obvious. That they had been hiding a nuclear processing plant but our CIA, Britain's and Israel's and even France knew that already. Then they agreed to inspection by the IAEA. The last time the IAEA tried that they were shuffled all over, had to tell their guides (guards) where they wanted to go at least 24 hours in advance and generally were obstructed in their work. So we'll have to see how it comes out this time.
 
Cap and Trade, thankfully, is tied up somewhere in Congressional no-mans-land. Meantime his friendliness to Hugo Chavez has seen Chavez seal a deal with Russia for Russian navy vessles and weapons in return for some control or selling to the Soviet Bear of Venezuela's oil. Remember they ship a lot of oil to us too. They're third on our import list after Mexico. A disruption in that flow would be, if not catastrophic, at least highly disruptive to our economy.
 
In the mid-East he and Sec Clinton have been unable to find any way to a cease fire and truce, much less a peace accord. With hard liner Netenyahu now in office any movement toward peace seems unlikely.
 
At home everyone is watching both GM and Chrysler's results for the quarter just ended and then in January for the quarter we're in now. The government has now admitted there will be at least $15 Billion we won't be getting back. Makes you wish for Lee Iaccoco doesn't it?
 
That means most of the rose color has come off his campaign promises and he's now in the trenches. These next few months will prove telling as to the mettle of the man.
 
And the Great Orator is dropping in the polls. This must be astonshing to a man who has acted as if he were untouchable, and with good reason. He's losing Independents, Republicans that crossed over to vote for him and even some Dems who face re-election next year.  Try Goody's powder my man, it's very popular here in the South.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If Pres wants Senior support for HCR

Posted by E Frank on Monday, September 21, 2009 12:00:00 AM
If the Pres or AARP wants Seniors to support HCR then they need to get more specific. Where exactly is $500 Billion to be saved? Will hospitals accept a reduction in the increase in Medicare reimbursement each year? If they don't will hospitals start not accepting Medicare patients as many nursing homes have? Has Congress liberally borrowed from Social Security and Medicare funds as reputed? If so is it Congress's failure to pay back those funds that's part of the problem?
When you keep people in the dark on your proposals they distrust you. This is the least transparent administration I've seen and because so much the Pres promises comes out differently I distrust him, Rahm, Pelosi and Reid.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attacks on our Pledge and Prayer

Posted by E Frank on Friday, September 18, 2009 8:26:28 PM
 
Andy Rooney and Prayer

"I don't believe in Santa  Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.  I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school  teacher taught his Theory of Evolution." 

No constiutional rights are at stake when a prayer is said at the beginning of a school day or when a coach says grace at a team dinner.
Thankfully a jury acquited the coach for that but he's still a former coach.

We're a nation founded on Christian principles so why can't we say a prayer when school starts, why can't our Pledge have "under God" in it, why can't there be time after school for religious clubs? No one's infringing on any other religion. Let there be clubs for Protestants, Catholics, Islamists, Bahai and Buddhists and any other main line religion you can think of. So long as we don't exclude anyone who gets hurt.

The agnostic or aetheist you say. No, they are free not to listen, they are free to go home instead of to a religious club. Just as they do when they are playing on a team or a member of any other club that meets after school.

This the United States of America , a country founded on Christian principles. If you were in Israel you'd expect to hear Jewish prayers, in Iran Islamic prayers, etc, etc and I'll bet you wouldn't be offended.

There is a minority of people, maybe a very tiny minority who have a big roar and we have let them get away with it. Let's speak up next time we're at a gathering where somebody doesn't want to say the pledge or doesn't want to hear a prayer before a meal. If you came here from another country to enjoy our freedoms then the least you can do is pledge allegiance to the flag that stands for that freedom. The very least you can do is keep quiet while we say a prayer the way we were taught to do by our parents. And don't expect us to change to a national standard of your language. You came here - learn ours!
   
  
  
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe Wilson, Obama lies, Jimmy Carter

Posted by E Frank on Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:00:00 AM
 
I saw Rep Joe Wilson call Pres Obama a liar. I thought "Good for you" because I do think the President lies with impunity.  Then  I saw and read everybody crawling all over him for it.
 
This in my mind is simply another push from the Congressional Black Caucus whose leadership has publicly expressed their belief that this will lead us down the road to sheets and pillow cases again. What a ludicrous assumption. Of course Pelosi and Reid, having said nothing prior to that, immediately caved and a vote for Admonishment was called for and the Black Causcus wanted an apology in the well of the House.
 
Having already apologized to the Pres through Rahm Emanuel, and that apology having been accepted, Rep Wilson flatly, and wisely, refused to apologize again.  I came back to this tonight because I was already writing a blog about the few leading the many and how the many needed to put an end to it. This is just another case of the same.
 
Let the Democrats get out any of "Ws" later State of the Unions, but particularly 2005 when George was talking about Social Security going broke and see all the Dems rising together booing the Pres. Oh yes Barack Obama was there. Isn't this disrespectful to a Presidnet?  What in the world would the Dems be saying now if the Repubs had risen during sections of Obama's speech and booed him? There were certainly times when they had a right to because he was a liar again in several instances. 
 
He states flatly, looks straight into the camera with that serious stare of his, and says he won't sign a bill that increases the national debt by what was it a penny or a dime? Yet he knows that the Congressional Budget Office has said the current bill will add $900 Billion to $1 Trillion to the national debt over ten years. At least he was honest about the cost - "around $900 Billion." It's how it's being paid for he evaded.
 
New taxes? You betch'a. Cuts in Medicare/Medicaid? Right again. Now I don't think there can be one of you who believes that a $950 Billion dollar bill can be paid for without finding new revenue streams (taxes or fees). And when he declares, as he has many times, that he will save $500 Billion in Medicare/Medicaid waste or fraud how can a Senior citizen believe that won't happen without a reduction in benefits?
 
Don't you think if there were that much waste and fraud that Bill Clinton or George Bush would have chased it so funds could have been used elsewhere? Setting aside the partisanship of his speech it gave no more details then he ever has and that's why his numbers are slipping and his cap and trade and health care are in jeprody.
 
That's why so many people were in Washington on the 12th.  It has nothing to do with racism. He won the election going away. People didn't just discover that he's black these past few weeks.  Now when 75,000 or so rally against him it must be because of his race. It's not!  It's because of his policies.  Jimmy Carter, showing once again a mean streak he has, took one more step into insignificance.
 
By way BO must have learned that partisan approach from Pelosi. She's got it perfected. She slams the Repubs regularly while at the same time calling for their cooperation on legislation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism=Socialism

Posted by E Frank on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:00:00 PM
From Laurie Stinson McKay on FacebooK:
 
Norman Thomas (1884-1968)was a leading American socialist. pacifist, and six time pres. candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He said this in a 1944 speech,
 "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened." He went on to say "I no longer need to run as a Pres. Candidate for the Socialist party. The Democrat party has adopted our platform." 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OLBERMANN's Slimy

Posted by E Frank on Monday, September 07, 2009 10:00:00 PM
Those of you who know how much I detest Keith Olbermann  may wonder why I'm posting a rant of his. The only answer I have is to prove what an s-o-b he is.

Glenn Beck has asked his listerners/viewers to send him information on three of the Czars in Obama's administration. He has been doing a series on his shows uncovering the Czar's backgrounds, often radical backgrounds.

But Olbermann who, along with Don Imus, are two of the  nastiest men in broadcasting uses it to launch his own dig for whatever "dirt" his listeners/viewers can find on Glenn Beck, or Roger Ailies (the man who got Fox News off the ground and still runs it for Rupert Murdoch). It's the sign of his small mind and I wanted you to see it. He hates the fact that Beck is attackling Obama's Czars and he can't counter Beck's claims so he intends to go with personal attacks on Beck and Ailies.

Notice also he insults  Beck with all those hot button, anti-American labels.  Hot button words to fire his readers up. As if he himself and all his audience were the only pure patriots. It is a two pronged hit. I'll call him names and then I'll find dirt on him and smear him.  That'll teach him to question our MSNBC sponsored POTUS. 

There should be no room in broadcasting for such a prejudicial, biased, small mind. It is a disgrace that MSNBC has made room for these people as Oakland always makes room for all the bad boys of football. By the way that's where Olbermann came from - sports. Given the actions of many of our  athletes today I guess he has taken his lead from them. In my opinion he's the kind of guy who would knock a football player down and then step on his head. (Michael Vick's younger brother at Virginia Tech.)

Notice also in the very first line he insults people who have replied to him. His is a huge arrogance and conceit.

Send Me Everything You Can Find About Glenn Beck by Keith Olbermann  Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:14:03 AM PDT

Updated: this posting has been visited lately by visitors who have kind of rushed through this and concluded I have decided, out of the blue, to collect "dirt" on Glenn Beck. I forgot I'd need to explain things slowly for them:

From the Washington Independent, linked below, after the jump:
              Glenn Beck’s Twitter feed has become a must-read. In a message from last night, Beck told his followers to “FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON CASS SUNSTEIN, MARK LLOYD AND CAROL BROWNER.”
 
I don't know why I've got this phrasing in my head, but: Find everything you can about Glenn Beck,  Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes.
 
No, even now, I refuse to go all caps.

No, sending me links to the last two Countdowns with my own de-constructions of his biblical vision quality Communist/Fascist/Socialist/Zimbalist art at Rockefeller Center (where, curiously, he works, Comrade) doesn't count. Nor does sending me links to  specious inappropriate point-underscoring prove-you're-innocent made-up rumors.

Tuesday we will expand this to the television audience and have a dedicated email address to accept leads, tips, contacts, on Beck, his radio producer Burguiere, and the chief of his tv enablers, Ailes (even though Ailes' power was desperately undercut when he failed to pull off his phony "truce" push).

This becomes necessary after this in order to prove various cliches about goose and gander, and to remind everybody to walk softly and carry a big popsicle, and most particularly to save this nation from the Oligarhy of The Stupid.   (I'd guess he means Oligarchy - where power is vested in a few, a clique. And I'd bet some money to a donut hole that Beck would say that's exactly what he's doing. Trying to protect the country from an Oligarchy of the Stupid, the Power Hungry, the Greedy, the Inexperienced.)

I keep wondering if somewhere somebody named Ollie Garhey thinks he's in charge now. Or, even more entertainingly and societally satisfying, if somebody named Ali Garhi does.

Despite the worn-out snark above, I am in earnest here.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why We MUST March on Washington

Posted by E Frank on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:02:33 PM

Why we must March on Washington

Throughout history governments have ignored the rights of citizens and instead have maximized their own power. Those in public office have used it for their own personal gain, or to take wealth from some and give to others in order to maintain their own power. It is a classic model that hasn’t changed much in thousands of years.

The modern iteration of this is a leviathan federal government run by a political party based precisely on such principles. The bread and circuses of Roman times have merely been replaced with redistribution of wealth and a paternalistic state.

The other major political party in America ostensibly believes in limited government and free markets, but as the previous administration proved, these principles are practiced only when convenient. Sometimes it may be necessary to disregard the free market, “in order to save it.” How disappointing.

The flame of liberty does not depend upon the success or failure of either political party in America. No one politician or party can keep that flame lit well into the future. Ultimately it is up to those that care deeply about freedom to stoke the embers, and protect them from the wind.

In the last year or so those of us who cherish liberty have been pushed up against a wall. We have watched the federal government bail out the elites on Wall Street for their own bad decisions. We have seen a new president waste a trillion dollars on failed economic ideas and increase our debt to dangerous proportions. We have heard the soaring rhetoric and watched the media fawn all over this new president who we are told is a new FDR. But we don’t want another FDR. We want our freedom, we want less government in our lives and we want to be left alone.

As we watched the size and scope of government grow exponentially this year we rose up in protests across the country. It is not in our nature as conservatives and libertarians to protest, but we had exhausted all other forms of communication to our elected officials. In late February hundreds or even thousands of Americans responded to the call for another Boston Tea Party by demonstrating in cities across the country.

We were mocked, we were doubted and we were vilified. They said that we were merely acting out, or that we wouldn’t be able to muster another protest like that. Weeks later, on tax day, more than a million of us came out again to send a much louder message to our elected officials. We had spent the previous weeks organizing, making signs, pleading with our friends and family to come out and be heard. We made history that day and shocked the elite media, which couldn’t quite figure out what was going on. Again, we were told that the protests wouldn’t continue that we weren’t real.

But we pressed on, and continued to plan events around the country on July 4th and July 17th. The media essentially ignored us and barely mentioned the growing movement beneath their upturned noses. In early August everyone seemed surprised when thousands of us showed up at town hall meetings across the country and took advantage of our chance to meet face to face with the same politicians that have been voting for socialism in America. Now the attacks from the media and the left became more forceful, more ugly, more false. Finally, we had gotten our feet under us as a movement and had begun to push back against the forces of socialism. The scene across the country was, I’m told, reminiscent of the sixties. Only this time the radicals were the ones protesting against the left-wing establishment.

Now we come to the heat of August, and the protests and town hall meetings are keeping the pressure on the politicians. As one woman in Pennsylvania told a prominent senator, “You have awakened a sleeping giant.” This month the media and the left will continue to write us off, or malign us, but we will press on. And once the dust settles and the politicians return to Washington, they will think that it is all over. They only wish.

As the politicians return, we will follow them to Washington. We will come from every state, in big cities and small towns, to descend upon the capitol building with one voice. Our message will be a simple one: we demand our freedom. We reject the growth of the federal government and want our republic restored. This is not, and never will be, a socialist nation.

We will march on Washington on September 12th because we must. Because we have to turn the temperature up on the politicians to remind them once again that we will not go quietly into the night. We will work harder and out-organize the taxpayer-funded left wing groups like ACORN. We, the producers of this country will not be taken over by the looters and their representatives in Congress.

A march on Washington is necessary because it is the natural next step for a growing movement that started with a spark inCape Coral, Florida and Elkhart, Indiana. A movement where a handful of people inspired others thousands of miles away to take to the streets because if the folks in Cape Coral could do it, so could the folks in Elkhart. We march on Washington because it will take a massive gathering of liberty-loving Americans to make such an impact on Congress and the president that we stop the current slide to socialism. When the national and international press sees that the American people have gathered by the thousands in one place, at one time, to stand in solidarity with the constitution and the declaration of independence, no longer will we be written off.

We have the opportunity to come together at this march and make our mark in a way that previous Americans before us have done. We can keep the flame of liberty lit for future generations, but we all have to put in the work to do so. We are only two weeks away from September 12th, a day in which we can finally speak in one, loud voice for freedom. I believe that if we can pull this off, we can stop the government takeover of health care and the energy sector, and stop this rapid socialist experiment before it eliminates any more of our liberty.

Our personal appeal to you is to spend the next two weeks helping to spread the word about this event. Charter a bus, recruit more people, call talk radio and do everything else in your power to alert your fellow Americans to this cause. If we work together we can make history and throw a counter punch to big government that will put it on the ropes. From there, we can begin regaining our liberty and restoring our republic to its original founding. This is why we must march on Washington on September 12th.

 

Agenda for March on Washington

(Tentative – last updated 08/28/09)

Freedom Works will be putting together the details of the week’s events soon. For now, this is our tentative agenda for 9-10 through 9-12. This is the most up to date, and accurate place for information on the web.

Thursday, 9-10
9:00am to 12:00pm Liberty Summit at DC Armory (REGISTER NOW!)
1:00pm: Press Conference on Capitol Hill (REGISTER NOW!)
1:30pm to 5:30pm: Grassroots lobbying visits on Capitol Hill
5:30pm Doctors Rally Against Socialized Medicine (REGISTER NOW!)

Friday, 9-11
9:00am Leadership Institute: Internet Activist Workshop (Agenda and Registration)
10:00am – 5:00pm ParentalRights.org Lobbyist and Activism Training Seminars (Agenda and Registration)
12:00pm to 4:00pm CEI/ARC Intellectual Ammunition Workshop (REGISTER)
1:00pm Leadership Institute: Grassroots On the Ground Workshop (Agenda and Registration)
2:00pm to 5:30pm Grassroots lobbying visits on Capitol Hill
4:00pm Bureaucrash Happy Hour at Bullfeathers (space limited to 100)
5:00 pm Leadership Institute: Grassroots on the Hill Workshop (Agenda and Registration)
6:30pm to 10:00pm Remember 911 and support the  troops at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 

Saturday, 9-12
9:00am Crowd gathers at Freedom Plaza
11:30am March on the Capitol Begins down Pennsylvania Ave. 
1:00pm March ends and Rally Begins at West Front of the U.S. Capitol

Note:  Folks that don’t want to participate in the March, or can’t because of health conditions are encouraged to head down to the West Lawn of the Capitol to wait for the marchers there.  Volunteers will be available at the West Lawn to assist citizens with disabilities in wheelchairs or using scooters and they will escort them to the front near the stage so that they will be able to see the speakers.

If you have any questions about the March on Washington, please contact Josh Eboch at jeboch@freedomworks.org or 202-942-7607.

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AP Story on ColorofChange and Beck

Posted by E Frank on Sunday, August 23, 2009 10:00:00 PM
Article from Time-Warner's cable home page
by Associated Press and David Bauder
(some emphasis added)

Attack on Obama riles Beck's advertisers
Published - Aug 23 2009 10:18AM EDT

By DAVID BAUDER - AP Television Writer

NEW YORK -- Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel after a vacation on Monday with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Walmart, CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.

The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that "we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts." The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that is has decided not to advertise on political talk shows.

The shows present a dilemma for advertisers, who usually like a "safe" environment for their messages. The Olbermanns, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Maddows and Becks of the TV world are more likely to say something that will anger a viewer, who might take it out on sponsors.

They also host the most-watched programs on their networks.

"This is a good illustration of that conundrum," said Rich Hallabran, spokesman for UPS Stores, which he said has temporarily halted buying ads on Fox News Channel as a whole.

Beck can bring the eyeballs. With the health care debate raising political temperatures, his show had its biggest week ever right before his vacation, averaging 2.4 million viewers each day, according to Nielsen Media Research.

He was actually on another Fox show July 28 when he referred to Obama as a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network immediately distanced itself from Beck's statement, but Beck didn't. He used his radio show the next day to explain why he believed that. He would not comment for this article, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said.

ColorofChange.org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization's executive director.

"They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it."

It's not immediately clear how many of the companies actually knew they were advertising on Beck's show. Sometimes commercial time is chosen for a specific show, but often it is bought on a rotation basis, meaning the network sprinkles the ads throughout the day on its own schedule. Sometimes ads appear by mistake; Best Buy said it bought commercial time for earlier in the day, and one of its ads unexpectedly appeared in Beck's show.

One company, CVS Caremark, said it advertises on Fox but hadn't said anything about Beck. Now it has told its advertising agency to inform Fox that it wanted no commercials on Beck.

"We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful," said spokeswoman Carolyn Castel.

Besides the unpredictability of the opinionated cable hosts, the rapid pace of today's wired world complicates decisions on where to place ads, said Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Sprint. She said she was surprised at how fast the Beck issue spread across social media outlets and how quickly advertiser names were attached to it.

UPS' Hallabran said the decision to pull commercials "should not be interpreted as we are permanently withdrawing our advertising from Fox." He said the company wants to reach viewers with a wide spectrum of opinions.

Except for UPS Stores, there's no evidence that any advertisers who say they don't want to be on Beck's show are leaving Fox. Network spokeswoman Irena Briganti said the companies have simply requested the ads be moved elsewhere and that Fox hasn't lost any revenue.

She wouldn't say whether Fox was benefiting from any anti-anti-Beck backlash, with companies looking to support him. Some Beck supporters have urged fans to express their displeasure at companies for abandoning their man.

Beck supporters have suggested that retaliation might have something to do with ColorofChange.org's campaign. One of the group's founders, Van Jones, now works in the Obama administration and has been criticized by Beck. But Rucker said Jones has nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.

Beck's strong ratings, even at 5 p.m. EDT he often outdraws whatever CNN and MSNBC show in prime-time, make it unlikely Beck is going anywhere even with the list of advertisers avoiding him approaches three dozen.

But it could mean advertising time becomes cheaper on his show than such a large audience would normally command. Some of his show's advertisers last week included a male enhancement pill, a law firm looking to sue on behalf of asbestos victims, a company selling medical supplies to diabetics and a water filter company.

Rucker said ColorofChange.org has contacted about 60 companies regarding Beck, and is heartened by the response.

"It's causing a certain conversation around Beck, which I think is important," he said.


(See my commentary - Glenn Beck gets it put to him)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glenn Beck gets it put to him

Posted by E Frank on Sunday, August 23, 2009 10:00:00 PM

On Time-Warner's home page there is an article by David Bauder from Associated Press. It says "Attack on Obama Riles Beck Advertisers."
 
Now we all know that's not true! It wasn't the advertisers who were riled. It was an organization called ColorofChange.org. The article says, "....ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him."
 
So what riled the advertisers was ColorofChange, a Saul Alinsky technique. It's the science of creating a negative commotion where there isn't any at the time. So ColorofChange gets African Americans stirred up because Beck said he felt Obama was a racist. Then using that they go after the advertisers. Alinsky used this technique back in the 60s for community organization. It pits color versus color.
 
 How many times was "W" called a racist where there was no such commotion, even compared to "Hitler." Should there be an organization called WhiteforChange so such attacks on a white President would draw the same vituperative response?  Should white Americans jump at every slight to a white politician?
 
Remember this was Beck's opinion, something he's paid to give. Are Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow purer then Beck? And then Bauder throws O'Reilly in for good measure. It seems to me O'Reilly is far fairer then Olbermann, Ed, Maddow or even Matthews. That's probably why he outscores them all in the ratings.
 
So if in ColorforChange.org's opinion Obama is not racist but Beck is - what are they? Not even handed, that's for certain. Might I suggest racist?      
                                                              Change??  Only for the worse!!
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

First Lady Costs High

Posted by E Frank on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:00:00 PM

This was forwarded to me by my friend Milt Burroughs, to wit:

It never ends...................

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country
that has given me so much, she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law
firm for a career in public service, “ Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t
perform any official duties although we all know that the First Lady is expected
to be a diplomat a hostess, a good will ambassador, etc. But this hasn’t
deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her
every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.
Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White
House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for
her personal secretary.

How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans
facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald d cheeseburgers, prepare to scream
and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz
Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense
departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:

   1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)

   2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

   3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and
White House Social Secretary)

   4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Communications for the First Lady)

   5. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of
Staff to the First Lady)

   6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

   7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the
First Lady)

   8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the
First Lady)

   9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deput y Director of Policy and Projects for
the First Lady)

  10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

  11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

  12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events
Coordinator For The First Lady)

  13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advan ce and Trip Director
for the First Lady)

  14. Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

  15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press
Secretary To The First Lady)

  16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and
Traveling Aide To The First Lady)

  17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For
The First Lady)

  18. Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)

  19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to
the First Lady)

  20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

  21. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

  22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the
First Lady)
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First
Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to
Europe.

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such
an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's
social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when
even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to
Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.

Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PRESIDENTIAL THUGGERY AND OTHER THOUGHTS

Posted by E Frank on Monday, August 17, 2009 9:00:00 PM
Most all of you are undoubtedly aware by now that the head of the Congressional Budget Office took a beating last week. We should remember that the CBO is supposed to be a non-partisan operation advising Congress on the cost of legislation and such. Hands off by politicians.
 
Well the CBO said that the Obama Health Plan was not going to save money and wasn't even revenue neutral. And that the deficit this year would probably be $1.8-$2 Trillion dollars. That's for one year folks. A record by the way!!
 
So the man had to be called into the White House. This lack of team work just wouldn't do. Did the Pres apply the pressure? Maybe! I'd think it was more likely Rahm Emanuel, he of the legendary temper. But whichever one it was CBO got the old Chicago politics treatment and my-oh-me didn't the CBO find a mistake in their calculations and they were able to lop $250 Billion or so off that Health Care estimate.
 
On the budget? Maybe it will only have a $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit. Now I think it's only fair to point out that the WH keeps blaming George Bush for this. Heard the Pres do it just the other night. "Inherited" the deficit. Actually "W" had about a $500 Billion deficit. Obama added the nearly $800 Billion stimulus to that and has come up with a couple of hundred Billion more and the year doesn't end until September 30th.
 
The point is by pressuring the CBO the Pres circumvented our safe guards once again. He's already done it 44 times by appointing Czars without Congressional confirmation. Nobody vetted them but the Administration. Doesn't seem like the checks and balances system I learned. Not to mention the only Czars I ever heard of were Russian.
 
I can't imagine what we the little people will do next year facing what the Pres assures us will be "skyrocketing" utility costs from Cap and Trade. Then all these deficit figures. Our children and their children will pay. Our security is at risk should China fail to write our debt, after all defense and war cannot be run without money.
 
Nancy Pelosi came up with an idea - tax the "rich" and the "wealthy." Trouble is those turnips have already been squeezed to the max. Just 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of the taxes. And when you run it up to 5% they pay 60% of the taxes. Another jump to 10% and it's 90% of the taxes.
 
On a week-end talk show the tax-cheating Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner wouldn't rule out income tax increases below the Preisdent's $250,000 number. On the same day economic advisor Larry Summers said much the same thing. You can be certain there will be all sorts of Federal tax increases on any little tax they can find so the Pres can stick to his number. But no tax increases - that campaign promise - forget about it.  So far they haven't taxed food but watch out the government beast has a huge appetite to feed.
 
So the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire next year and we're certain to be paying new taxes one way or the other.  Where does that leave us? With a double or triple whammy from Obammy. Change?? Only for the worse. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Public Option or No??

Posted by E Frank on Monday, August 17, 2009 9:00:00 PM
From this month's Reader's Digest: "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."  Ronal Reagan  (I magine if he saw it now since it's gotten a lot worse then it was then.)
 
So today the airwaves are full of the idea that a govt. option in healthcare reform is a dead issue. Why? Because BO himself and Sebelius say it isn't necessary. If we believe that we should buy oceanfront property in Arizona. Remember the many busted promises of the campaign. This is a man and an administration that can speak two "truths" at the same time. Remember also the quick passing of bills in the House before the Representatives and staff can read them and find the implications of each section. Let us not count this elimination of a public option as fact until we see it happen.
 
Some say this dooms the idea of making insurance available to all. Not so. The current proposals that seem to be tossed around include licensing co-operatives that could buy insurance at preferable rates and offer same to others at a lower then market rate. This makes sense - buying in bulk at a low price so you can re-sell at a low price. Thin Target and Wal-Mart and the like. The governent could further enhance the availability by offering tax credits below a certain income level. Making anything a person paid for health insurance a bottom line tax deduction on a sliding scale.
 
I still favor a Medicare like program run under Medicare based on income. That would work too. 
 
And what about other egregious sections?
     Will Secretary Sebelius or a Health Czar, or the Health Commissioner mentioned in HR 3200 or a govt committee mentioned in the same bill decide the coverages we're offered. According to that House bill FOUR plans are to be dictated by one of these entities - Essential - Enhanced - Premium - Premium+. Now there's nothing wrong with that. The govt already does the same thing with Medicare Supplement Insuranace. But will the insurance companies be able to offer other plans covering the govt minimums and more?
     Will we still have end-of-life counseling and will the bill spell out whether they expect it to be done or are suggesting it be done? It's ambiguous in HR 3200. It's still a bad idea especially for Seniors.
     Is the section that exempts Non Resident Aliens from taxes going to be more specific as to what taxes? If it only comes down to the 2.5% tax on individuals without health care insurance it's still bad policy. Non Resident Aliens get health care when they're here and one assumes they're earning money and that is why they are here. So why will all of us as well as legal Resident Aliens be paying that tax if we don't have health insurance and why are Non-Resident Aliens exempted? AND if it reads as it does now and exempts them from ALL taxes that would be a travesty.
      I'm certain you've heard most of them by now so I won't go further except to say that HR 3200 is far to vague a bill to deserve being passed into law.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What A Day

Posted by E Frank on Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:00:00 PM
Day before yesterday Pelosi and her mob rose to new never before seen levels of political arrogance. The House Appropriations Committee voted for $200 Million for 3 new executive jets to be stationed in Washington & available for members of Congress and Pentagon brass.
 
It has been done in the middle of what BO and his advisors have described as the worst recession since the Great Depression. They have said we were/are on the edge of tipping into depression and that's why they needed the Stimulus package immediately. At a time when Congress had the nerve to lecture corporate executives who flew into DC to testify that they shouldn't be using corporate jets to come to DC with hat in hand. (Remember those corporate jets at that point weren't being paid for by taxpayer $$). In the face of all that, and Congress now having come to the American public with hat in hand for TARP and "Porkulus" 1 they are prepared to vote themselves 3 new G-5 executive jets. What's a G-5? On MSNBC this AM no-one had ever ridden in a G-5 but they had seen pictures and thought it was the Rolls Royce of exec jets.
 
MSNBC no less, one of the GE stations who were in BO's pocket during the campaign. Now I can understand TV people needing to use private jets. It's not just an ego stroke but necessary when they need to move from one news location to another in a hurry, say during a cmapaign for example. Or if they're on the West coast today and have to be on the East coast tomorrow. The point is commercial airline schedules don't always accomodate their time need. I also don't begrudge them their private jet rides because their corporations are paying for them.
 
My point is two-fold:
     People who probably take a lot of private jet rides hold the G-5 in great esteem and have not ever ridden on one;
     Congress is putting their rear ends in these planes with dollars out of our pockets.
 
GM and Chrysler didn't go broke because their executives flew to Washington, DC. It was the appearance of it when they were in need of taxpayer dollars that Congress found offensive. But Congress can't see that their buying themselves $200 Million in fancy rides with taxpayer dollars when we are right on a national average of double digit unemployment, stuck in a recession that has wiped out the retirement money of many and the income of even more, is far more egregious then those car company executives?
 
Forty-four uncontrollable and unresponsive Czars is arrogance with a capital A. It is Constitution shredding at its worst since FDR stacked the Supreme Court. This however is arrogance at its epitome. This is politics at a new low. Blind poitics! Politicians who don't give a darn. Politicians who believe they can get away with anything. Term limits never sounded better. 

Remember Pelosi complaining because the plane she was furnished to fly back and forth between San Francisco and Washington had to stop and refuel? She wanted a bigger plane. The G-5 can fly overseas without refueling. She didn't get a bigger plane but she who laughs last wins. Queen Pelosi can now ride in super comfort and non-stop. Disgusting!!!Change??  Only for the worse!! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »