Posted in Barack Obama, C-Haze, Congress, Current Events, Democrats, Health Care Reform, Healthcare Reform, Joe Wilson, News, Politics, Republicans

Joe Wilson Supports Medical Treatment of Illegal Immigrants At Taxpayer Expense

People often ask me why I am so interested in politics. The answer I most often give is that it’s because politicians can be so much fun!

I decided, after Joe Wilson’s now-infamous outburst during President Obama’s address to the joint sessions of Congress, to do a little research on Rep. Wilson himself…

… More specifically, I wanted to learn more about his voting record.

As I’m sure no one will be shocked to read, I have found that Joe Wilson is a complete hypocrite.

I know, I know- who isnt these days?

Wilson’s hypocrisy, however, is in direct relation to his supposed views against those who are not legally in this country receiving government-funded medical treatment.

Given this information, I was surprised to learn a very different bit of data about the South Carolina Representative.

Joe, it seems, actually supports the idea of federal tax dollars being used to pay for the medical treatment of illegal immigrants.

You see, there’s this law called the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 that contains a provision requiring an annual amount of $250,000 be set aside for the sole purpose of reimbursing hospitals who treat illegal immigrants. The legislation was initially to run from 2003 through 2008, but was recently extended into 2009, with talk of making it permanent.

When this Act came up for a vote in Congress, Joe Wilson voted “Yay”, as in, yes, to pass it.

So… let me get this straight:

Joe Wilson, who is an opponent of the Health Care Legislation in large part due to the fact that he believes the vicious rumors claiming that illegal immigrants will receive free, government-funded health insurance, decides to lose his freakin’ mind, jumping up and shouting “You Lie!” during the portion of Obama’s speech in which Obama is very truthfully debunking that particular myth…

… This same Joe Wilson who, while claiming he is being victimized by the left for his adamant opposition to government-funded health care for those who are not legally in this country…

Voted in support of the use of federal tax dollars to pay for the medical treatment of those very same illegal immigrants.


It’s a mouthful, but it’s all true, I can assure you.

Never a dull moment on Capitol Hill!


Tryin' to get the hang of this life thing... one step at a time!

23 thoughts on “Joe Wilson Supports Medical Treatment of Illegal Immigrants At Taxpayer Expense

  1. Hey C Haze,

    I could use the argument that it was ages ago that Wilson believed in those things. He is reformed now and besides, his role is very focused and specific now. 🙂 Of course I know that is not a very strong argument but hey, we sure have heard it a lot these days. lol

    We could also say that Wilson really wasn’t given much choice because he wanted to pass reform on Medicare, voting against the Medicare reform in that case would have painted him as being against the Medicare Act itself and not the detail thrown in about reimbursement to hospitals for the cost of treating illegal immigrants up to $250,000 annually. In reality, some hospitals in the South West are having a hard time keeping their doors open. They are loosing so much money due to the fact that few are paying for their bills; some have already closed their doors.

    I doubt the reason he voted for the Medicare Reform Act was because it reimburses hospitals for the cost of treating illegal immigrants. In fact I am almost 100% sure that is not why he voted for it. One of the largest reasons is that it is only $250,000. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the actual cost to hospitals.

    Many times two sides can’t come to an agreement on a bill. I would say that in this case, it was a compromise considering the relatively small amount of money we are talking about. Of course, it’s easy to portray it another way. But I suspect with the amount of money he will have by the time reelection comes, he’ll be ok. 🙂

    By the way, it was just a delayed reaction when he blurted out, “you lie”. He was really talking just in general about every speech. lol :O

    1. Hi SpiritOfTruth-

      As always, great points! I thought about most of these things as I was typing the post, but I was having too much fun to let any of it stop me. LOL. I knew someone like you would come along and pull me back towards reality a bit.

      Oh well. Riding my left-wing buzz was fun while it lasted. 🙂

  2. lol, its ok. I was feeling kinda like starting trouble with people and the local coffee shop is closed. They love me there. I honestly didn’t know about him voting for that bill until you mentioned it. I didn’t look into his history to much. I figured if it really took off I would check into it further. Up until now, I really didn’t know anything about him. I had to get that Van Jones jab in there just for fun. I was going to throw in a couple Czars but I’ll save them for when the other relevent controversies surface. 🙂

  3. This is all about the underlying, hideous factor of the racism that is so deeply ingrained in the American character. The attempt to portray this president (Of all people!) as a socialistic, left wing extremist doesn’t even pass the giggle test for people who have bothered to pay attention to their times and their history. Let’s face it – Franklin D. Roosevelt, he ain’t! They can’t obstruct his agenda with a manufactured scandal regarding his personal life, as they did with Bill Clinton. eleven years ago. Their only hope is for enough of the American people to become really frightened by the Big, Bad Negro Commie. An ironic description when one takes into consideration how boringly moderate Obama really is.

    Think about this: In the last presidential campaign only one of the nominees of the two major political parties was born in the United States – Barack Obama – John McCain was born in Panama. Do you find it as revealing as I do that it was the black guy had his citizenship called into question? How much more proof do we need of the overt racism that is inherent in that party – or in our own country for that matter? Honestly, this isn’t rocket science, folks!

    But wait! It gets better! Now Glenn Beck is slated to become the Martin Loony King of the Far Right thanks to his stupid “March on Washington” yesterday.

    Isn’t life interesting?

    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

    1. Hi Tom-

      Great points! I’ve been saying for months now that for many, the accusations of “Socialist!” when referring to Obama was really code for “N*gger!”. I truly do believe that. When I see white yahoos at townhall meetings screaming, “We want our country back!”, I think that’s the most honest thing I’ve seen in months. They are watching their white America disappear, slowly before their very eyes.

      The funny thing is, like you said, Obama is not a radical- not by any stretch of the imagination. He’s simply a black man who has risen far above the level any other person of color has ever managed- in this country anyway.

      As a bi-racial woman, I find the racism, thinly veiled as communist fears, disgusting.

      Thanks for stoppin’ by!

  4. Gee thanks Tom for you insightful opinion. What is frustrating people for than anything is being called racist when they know they are not. I guess I have to revise my dictionary now on what the word racist means.

    It should read something like this

    Racist: An insult often used by the political supporters of President Obama to defuse a valid argument when they lack a valid counter argument.

    The truth of the matter is that there are different types of socialism. Go ahead and look it up so that you can form a coherent argument. Or perhaps you should look up what racist means.

    John McCain was born overseas because his parents where in the military. End of story.

    It is in my opinion that people like you who call people racist because they think Obama’s economic and social policies are in fact the true racist. You are not going to win by trying to guilt people into being afraid to say the word, “socialist”. Any educated person knows very well, there are varying degrees and types of socialism. While there have been previous Presidents who have enacted socialistic policies, none have appointed people to work for them who hate America and freedom. There is a fundamental shift with Obama’s policies like a lot of Americans do not like. Obama may present himself as moderate but, many of the people who work around him do not.

    To end, I will throw you a bone and acknowledge that there are in fact racist out there. However, you Tom are the largest of them all. You are the man with the power keeping the black man down. Keep telling him all those white crackers out there are trying to keep him down and the Democrat is going to help him up. Keep telling them that the only reason people call Obama socialist is because they are racist. You are the racist one in this room Tom. Bring up past presidents all day, it does not matter. Today is a new day with new problems and complications. If you want to debate the issues, I’m all for it. If you want to sit around and call people racist because you are simply a mental midget, enjoy you day in the sun. Lots of sunlight is sometimes the best cure for disease and infection.

    1. Hi SpiritOfTruth-

      I hope Tom weighs in on your response, because I think you both have some very valid points. I think there are many people who simply want to debate the issues and honestly don’t give a hoot what color Barack Obama happens to be. When Bush was in office, for example, I never hated him as a person- it was never personal for me on that level- I simply had a problem with his policies. I know that is also the case with many who don’t like the direction Obama is trying to lead this nation- it isn’t personal, there are just a lot of ideological differences. Because we live in a very intense time- truly, I believe this country is at an important crossroad- it’s hard not to get very passionate about those differences.

      Passionate disagreement does not equate to racism.

      I also, however, believe that there are many people- people who are not educated on the issues, and who have no interest in learning about them- but are very upset that a black man stands before them as their President. We’ve seen a lot of these people on TV- they’re generally the folks who are holding the picket signs that scream, “Death to Obama!” at a townhall meeting to discuss health care reform. Obviously, such conduct is not conducive to honest debate, nor does wishing for Obama’s death have anything to do with the very real issues at hand.

      Over all, I think racism has more to do with this than conservatives are willing to accept, but less than what liberals would have you believe. Some of it is very subconscious in nature. I am reminded of the many white people I know who truly, in their heart of hearts do not think they are prejudiced. They have black friends, they’re cool with black people… until one of them tries to date their daughter, that is. Or perhaps a black co-worker is cool enough to go have drinks with during happy hour… but suddenly, should that black person get a promotion, things aren’t so kosher anymore.

      Is that how everyone feels? Of course not. I do know, however, that there are many people out there who take issue with Obama’s race.

      I wish there was a way to keep people on track- discussing the issues, the real politics at play without allowing the fears that we may not even be aware we have “color” the debate.

      No pun intended! LOL.

  5. Tom,

    P.S. Some grammatical mistakes in that last post because I’m short on time. Feel free to point them out rather than debate socialism. I’ll gladly nee cap your points later when I have more time. That is if you have any. Thanks

  6. I’m all for debating the issues. I agree that there are people out there who are nuts. I have to take issue with painting people across the board as racist that clearly are not. Just look at the coverage of the recent tea party as an example. Of course I can’t say that the people holding up death to Bush signs are racist. But it doesn’t change the fact that people did hold up those signs. Now some crazy person holding up a sign with Obama as President, it is now racist because he is black. The person holding that sign could be racist but, that doesn’t justify painting millions of people as racist. Race may have something to do with some people motives. I happen to think that the left is over using it as an excuse which will ultimately detract from this debate and harm true civil rights issues.
    The right does not talk in code words to convey some communicate some deep seeded evil undertones or racist views. The first thing people should look into when making an off the wall accusation is their own deep seeded dysfunction.

    Here is an example of what I’m pointing out.
    MSNBC interview about race again………big surprise

    She says towards the end about Obama, “He makes white people feel like we are all trying really hard (refering to not being racist) and we like it when he makes us feel this way”. She nauseates me with the way she attempts to project her own dysfunction and prejudice on other white people. That goes for the interviewer also. Back to work here.

    1. I chalk it up to scare tactics. It seems that people (and I am not excluding myself) are quick to point to the Republicans for their “fear mongering”. The left, however, does the same thing. While conservatives are utilizing moral outrage- often under false pretenses- the left utilizes racial guilt. It’s as if we hope to get our agenda passed, not based on its merits, but based on shame. If we can make enough people back up off the black man BECAUSE he’s black, we’ll meet less resistance. People will be less willing to speak out for fear of being labeled a bigot.

      What concerns me is that bogus claims of racism do not help the very real plight that many people legitimately still face, as a result of their skin color. It is a real problem, but becoming alarmist to the point of completely overblowing the issue is not going to be helpful to the cause.

      It’s like the boy who cried wolf. People are sick of hearing about racism every time they turn around. It doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist, but to keep pushing and pushing turns people off. Folks are going to end up ignoring the real problem because they’ve been so over-saturated with the fake one.

  7. I completely agree with you. What concerns me is something I have observed in Germany. WW2 is fresh in many people’s minds and history books. Trust me I’m not going off on a Nazi/Democrat rant. I’m speaking about the guilt forced on the younger generations that are in school right now. It is already resulting in a backlash and polar opposite effect it was meant to have. What worries me most; we are already seeing a large percentage of the youth adopt the very same views that led to NAZISM to begin with. Why is this happening? Why are the youths turning radical again? What have we done wrong as a society? Are we making the same mistakes here? What can we do to not repeat the mistakes of other countries who are already repeating their own? One clue is what led up to WW2 after WW1? Does punishing groups for extended periods of time or attempting to humiliate them do more harm than good? I think in some cases it does. Should not we be more focused on prevention and education rather, than punishment and ridicule for past generation’s deeds?
    An analogy just came to me. When a child is born, the first thing that happens is the child gets smacked on the butt. It’s not for medical purposes, it’s for what their grandparents did. 🙂

  8. Speaking of Racsim and Government run amok in the news:

    Racism Watch: Chris Matthews Calls Rush Limbaugh Black

    Comparing him to Yaphet Kotto, the villain in the Bond flick Live and Let Die, and opining that he’d like to see Rush Limbaugh die in a similar fashion.

    This from a guy who just a few weeks ago was ranting about the undercurrents of incitement to political violence on the right wing, just the same way the right wing was talking up violence in 1963. (He forgot to mention that while there was indeed dark talk of violence by the right in ’63, Kennedy was in fact killed by Marxist/Soviet-emigrant Lee Harvey Oswald. Must have slipped his mind.)

    But talking about the murder of Rush Limbaugh? Just good, insightful political commentary.

    Incidentally, that whole “racist” thing in the headline? Yeah. Not the dumbest racism charge of the day. Seems Tammy Bruce wanted a funny picture to illustrate a post about Obama getting the Nobel Prize, so she put up one of a raccoon digging in a Cracker Jack box.

    Raccoon. Raccoon. Don’t you see? Don’t you see the racism?

    Well the brain trust at Sadly, No! did. (Above link is to Patterico, goofing on them.)

    Thanks to DrewM.

    Oh: Rush’s “Slavery” Comment. The left has been claiming that Rush once said (years ago) that slavery had its benefits — including that it was “safe to walk the streets at night,” or something along those lines.

    When I read that, I figured that that was Rush doing that irony thing — taking his opponents’ claims to their logical conclusion, to show the stupidity of them; irony that liberal critics alway seem to fail to comprehend.

    I didn’t realize that there was another explanation — that the “Limbaugh remarks” are simply invented out of whole cloth.

    O’Reilly’s research team can find no evidence of these remarks — no audio, no contemporaneous reportage of them — except the left’s own unsourced claims about something they all claim happened twenty years ago. The only citation for this claim seems to be the left all quoting each other’s assertions about it.

    They seem to have simply made it up.

    This possibility — that the left is simply lying ad making stuff up — rarely occurs to me. I usually assume that there’s a kernel of truth here; they may be twisting it, but there’s still some truth in their claims.

    I don’t know why I assume that. I guess I just assume that no one is malicious or stupid enough to simply invent libelous claims.

    But the left never fails to disappoint.

    Thanks to RobertE.

    More: The Left actually has a pattern of inventing “Limbaugh quotes,” inserting them into WikiQuote, and then citing their own made-up WikiQuote entries as evidence of Limbaugh’s supposed racism.

    This blog provides a case study of this behavior — some guy simply making up a “Limbaugh quote” from 1998 — in 2005 — stating that MLKJr’s assassin should have been awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor, and wishing him “Godspeed.”

    Um, in 1998, Rush Limbaugh was huge. If he had said this someone would have noticed. A quote praising MLK Jr’s assassin would, I’m pretty sure, have made it into one of Al Franken’s moronbooks.

    But Wiki itself is so politicized that despite clear evidence this was entirely fabricated by some internet loser, they will only go so far as to say the quote is “DISPUTED.”

    Disputed. Absolutely zero evidence it was ever said, and lots of evidence it was simply fabricated, and the best we get out of Wiki is “DISPUTED.”

    MSNBC Peddles: MSNBC couldn’t track down the quote, of course, it being made up out of whole cloth.

    Did that stop them from running it? No, of course not — they quoted linebacker James Farrior mentioning it, running the quote on screen, with the “citation” “Cited by James Farrior.”

    Cited. See, they’re not saying Limbaugh said it — they’re saying someone else says he said it.

    That’s “journalism” now at MSNBC — quote things you know for a fact aren’t quotes at all and dodge your fact-checking by just noting a linebacker “cited” the claim.

    That “cited by James Farrior” is evidence of MSNBC’s guilty knowledge — it’s plain they attempted to find a citation for the claim. It’s also clear that they came up empty.

    So rather than debunking the claim, or just not reporting it all, they report that someone else claims it was said. And offer the word “cited” in the supposed attribution to give the quote some kind of superficial authority.

    But you know, FoxNews is biased and stuff, and used to run the outrageous shorthand quote of Al Gore’s — “I invented the internet” — when he said nothing of the kind.

    He merely said “During my time in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.” Completely different, you see.
    Posted by Ace at 03:05 PM New Comments Thingy

    Artificial Stupidity: How the Democrats Decieved the CBO to Get Their “Reduces the Deficit” Claim

    The CBO has very strict rules about how they “score” a bill. Most importantly, they have to score a bill — or “conceptual language” in a non-bill, as we have here — according to what is written therein, even if it’s jackass.

    In other words, if a bill claims that certain things are going to happen that the CBO knows with 95% confidence will never happen — like Medicare payments being cut — the CBO still has to pretend those cuts will happen, even though they know, as we all know, they almost certainly won’t.

    Their scoring methodology resembles a computer’s “thinking” — a computer doesn’t think. It follows the rules it’s been programmed to follow, no matter how stupid those rules might be. It has no common sense or judgment. The analysts at the CBO might have common sense and judgment, but they’re stripped of that — prevented from using that — by the “code” of the program they follow, hard-wired into the system by law.

    That means that it’s not very hard to trick the CBO’s “programming,” just as it’s no difficult feat to crash a computer. Garbage in, garbage out. And the Baucus bill is specifically designed to produce garbage, to get a “salable number” for the deficit.

    And that number, while salable, is 100% false, by design.

    Among the tricks used to generate that false number:

    1. Increased revenues through increased taxes begin in 2010, but new payments and outflows begin in 2013. Meaning the ten-year window the CBO is required to score contains ten years of higher taxes and higher revenues, but only seven years of higher expenses. This is obviously an apples-to-oranges comparison — and if the CBO looked at 2013 through 2023, with ten years of higher revenue matched against ten years of higher expenses, they’d find a growing deficit, not a faked-up “deficit reduction” of $81 billion.

    But the Baucus bill deliberately takes advantage of the artificial stupidity of the CBO’s code to compare seven years of spending to ten years of taxes to get a “deficit reduction.”

    Sure it’s jackass to do that. But that’s the way the CBO is supposed to do it — even if it makes no sense — and the Baucus bill “conceptual language” deliberately exploits that in order to deceive the public.

    2. A large amount of the expense for federal health care spending is simply pushed off to the states, taking it off the fed’s books — supposedly. But the states are all operating at deficits now — they only reason they’re not bankrupt is that the federal government periodically votes them huge grants (supposedly as “stimulus”) to help close the gap between revenue and spending.

    If this health care bill passes, the states will be in even worse shape fiscally. They will avoid bankruptcy through two means: They will raise taxes — many of these hitting those who make under $200,000 per year (sales taxes, cigarette taxes, other sin taxes) and thus breaking Obama’s pledge of no new taxes for such people. He’s just mandating that the states do his dirty work for him.

    And they will seek, and receive, more aid from the federal government, this aid granted to pay down the huge new unfunded mandates the government has imposed on them.

    The CBO’s rules are deliberately subverted here — because technically, the states are supposed to come up with this revenue themselves. In reality — which the CBO isn’t allowed to consider — the federal government will simply grant them more aid.

    The trick is that this aid-to-the-states, inevitable as death, isn’t counted as a cost of the Baucus plan. After all, it’s not specifically labeled “Federal Subsidies to the States to Fund Federal Health Care Mandates.” It’s not labeled at all, and so the CBO can’t count it as a cost of the federal health care plan. (Actually, since this inevitable aid isn’t written into law — yet — they have to pretend it’s not going to happen at all, and not count what they know will ultimately be passed.)

    In reality, it should be so counted. If the federal government has to start granting the states $40 billion a year to pay for the new mandates, that is a federal expense deriving from the Baucus bill. But it won’t be labeled as such, and the CBO therefore won’t score it as such.

    Schwarzenegger, quoted widely by the Leftwing Media in “support” of ObamaCare, specifically objected to this shell-game, stating that if a program is too expensive for the federal government, it’s damnsure too expensive for the rickety finances of the states. (Oddly enough, the Leftwing Media wasn’t particularly interested in this part of his remarks.)

    3. Part of the revenue is supposed to come from increased taxes on high-end insurance plans. Trouble is, health care costs rise every year, and in some states, the health care costs are high enough that it won’t take too many years before many plans are deemed “Cadillac plans” and get higher taxes imposed on them — according to the bill as it is written.

    Because the CBO isn’t supposed to take into account that Congress will escalate the level at which those increased taxes start kicking in. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Congress will almost certainly adjust the numbers in the future to keep too many middle class families from paying big new taxes on their health care policies. And so the deficit will be increased, because a big chunk of the Baucus bill’s “conceptual language’s” revenues assume that all those voters will be ponying up more in taxes in the future. Again, the “conceptual language” is written in such a way to induce the CBO to pretend that the sky is pink and therefore give them their absurd “deficit reduction” claim.

    4. A lot of “savings” come from cutting Medicare and Medicaid… supposedly. But year after year Congress blocks any proposed cuts; this is the third rail in American politics. But the CBO is obligated to pretend they don’t know this, simply because the Baucus “conceptual language” claims it will happen.

    In all the above examples, the Baucus bill “conceptual language” is written not as a bona fide plan of legislation, but as a “hack” designed for no other purpose than to exploit the strict rules the CBO works under and produce a false number for public consumption. A more straightforward and honest bit of “conceptual language” was scored by the CBO as producing a big new deficit. That conceptual language has not been changed in any meaningful way — it’s simply been reworded to abuse the CBO’s methodology and produce a false result.

    “Hello,” they lied.

    And wait ’til they get past their introductions.

    Oh, and 5.

    5. It’s nearly an absolute rule that a politician can’t vote to cut Medicare or Medicaid — not without putting his career at risk. Health care coverage is income like any other — if your employer gives you a $5000 insurance policy, that’s $5000 in income. Same if the federal government gives you that policy — that is income to you, courtesy of the government other taxpayers.

    Medicare and Medicaid are key factors blowing up the US budget in ten years or less. But no one can do anything to bring those costs under control, because — well, there are millions of seniors who vote. And when they vote, they are being asked, basically, if they’d like to cut their salaries.

    Or if they’d like to keep their salaries.

    Or if they’d like to increase their salaries.

    Guess which is the most attractive option, which is the next most attractive option, and which is the least attractive option of all?

    The Baucus/Obama plan will put millions of Americans in the exact same position as the nation’s seniors — where the most important factor (or one of the top three, at least) is whether a politician promises to increase their salary, keep it at the same rate, or… make less income.

    Yay, less income!

    But the CBO is not supposed to take into consideration what happens when millions of Americans are newly socialized and their primary choice every election cycle is whether to give themselves a raise.

    I don’t believe they’re going to forgo raises very often, and I know for a fact they’re never going to vote to cut their salaries.
    Posted by Ace at 02:26 PM New Comments Thingy

  9. noneofyourbusiness,

    To bad it will go over most American’s heads. It will simply boil down to your very last point. Once everyone is socialized into the system, the powers that be will now be pulling the voting levers for them. That is the intent of the blitzkrieg towards socialism in America.

    It works like this. First, have distant associates destroy a people’s independence and any chance at succeeding on their own. The lower caste in our society is already dependent on the Government. With this demographic, you can have instant gratification in purchasing votes by making simple short lived promises of paltry amounts of money.

    The middle class is the largest threat to a Government that wants to cease absolute control. Simple pay outs won’t suffice. You have to create work for this class. You have to buy their votes by offering to give them their own money back through tax breaks. You also have to create industry for this common sense demographic to work in. This is difficult to do for a few reasons. First off, the major political campaign contributors come from the top percentile. This top percentile benefits from cheap labor and exploitation of the lower class. To provide jobs to the middle class means paying more money to pick the vegetables and work the assembly lines. Thus it is beneficial for the politicians to target the lower class to retain power while accepting money from the upper crust class to run campaigns targeting the lowest percentile for votes. The threat class includes small business owners along with blue collar workers. Small business owners and their employees comprise the majority of the resistance to the current social changes. The tea parties have been comprised mostly of people who understand that they are being squeezed out of the equation. They represent a large majority of Americans who live somewhat comfortable lives however they know how delicate their situation is. They recognize that they are being attacked because they do not rely Government. They value their independence and they want to maintain it even if it means making some sacrifices.

    The economic collapse is manufactured. I believe it is manufactured to crush the middle class and bring everyone into line. The idea that this is overt socialist revolution is reinforced by the promises of redistributing wealth and hand outs to the poor. Buying the votes of the poor and dependent on government demographic is much cheaper than the middle class. The middle class simply wants freedom and independence, which of course is very expensive to a government that wants more power and control. The poor just want a few bucks to help them out which is nice and cheap for a government that wants more power and control.

    The following are the words of Karl Marx. That’s right, Marx.

    “The provincial French middle class saw in the Commune an attempt to restore the sway their order had held over the country under Louis Philippe, and which, under Louis Napoleon, was supplanted by the pretended rule of the country over the towns. In reality, the Communal Constitution brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of their districts, and there secured to them, in the working men, the natural trustees of their interests. The very existence of the Commune involved, as a matter of course, local municipal liberty, but no longer as a check upon the now superseded state power. It could only enter into the head of a Bismarck – who, when not engaged on his intrigues of blood and iron, always likes to resume his old trade, so befitting his mental calibre, of contributor to Kladderadatsch (the Berlin Punch)[C] – it could only enter into such a head to ascribe to the Paris Commune aspirations after the caricature of the old French municipal organization of 1791, the Prussian municipal constitution which degrades the town governments to mere secondary wheels in the police machinery of the Prussian state. The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism. Its very existence presupposed the non-existence of monarchy, which, in Europe at least, is the normal incumbrance and indispensable cloak of class rule. It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions. But neither cheap government nor the “true republic” was its ultimate aim; they were its mere concomitants.
    The multiplicity of interpretations to which the Commune has been subjected, and the multiplicity of interests which construed it in their favor, show that it was a thoroughly expansive political form, while all the previous forms of government had been emphatically repressive. Its true secret was this:
    It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor.
    Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion. The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute.
    It is a strange fact. In spite of all the tall talk and all the immense literature, for the last 60 years, about emancipation of labor, no sooner do the working men anywhere take the subject into their own hands with a will, than uprises at once all the apologetic phraseology of the mouthpieces of present society with its two poles of capital and wages-slavery (the landlord now is but the sleeping partner of the capitalist), as if the capitalist society was still in its purest state of virgin innocence, with its antagonisms still undeveloped, with its delusions still unexploded, with its prostitute realities not yet laid bare. The Commune, they exclaim, intends to abolish property, the basis of all civilization!
    Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. But this is communism, “impossible” communism!”

    So, the point I’m trying to make is that this whole thing is not a Marxist revolution in the sense that many believe. It is in fact an attempt to consolidate power. The manner in which the Government is attempting to consolidate power is not the same as previous attempts. The conspiracy types expect black helicopters in the night to take them away. The poor view the middle class as wealthy and want what they have. They expect and are currently made such promises. The lowest class is only a threat to themselves in everyday life. The rich but not rich enough, are about to run for the hills and hide their wealth. The top percentage of rich, buy their safety. The middle class are screwed. Thus desperation ensues, for to move up in status is great, to move down puts people in a desperate state of mind. This current strategy, appealing to the poor and continuing to exploit their cheap labor and votes while simultaneously attempting to subjugate the middle class is doomed to failure in a catastrophic way. The middle class is by far the largest demographic in America. If there is not continual upward movement or stability, they will become restless. An example is the tea parties. There was over a million people in D.C. There was no honest coverage by the media. Simple jokes and attempts to paint them as a bunch of rednecks. Just go nighty night giant, nothing to see here. Go back to sleep.

    1. Oh for God’s sake, People! Whatever happened to simple political debate between Americans who have opposing views? All this socialism/communism/blietzkreig nonsense is making my head spin!

    2. And the YouTube clip… they pick the dumbest of the dumb to interview, and that’s an accurate representation? I would say that’s about as accurate as the nation believing all Tea Party members are a bunch of racist rednecks.

  10. I know. Trust me I had to search a long time to find that clip. The point I was making is that the middle class is who is scared.

    There is also a major shift on the right towards rougher tactics recently. Unfortunately it has been used against them very effetely and now the left is becoming the victims of their own tactics. I predicted this was going to happen a long time ago and it is happening now. Once dirty politics starts, it’s the ones with the most dirt on them who will loose.

    Here is a short list of recent developments.

    CAIR exposed
    ACORN exposed
    News media bias exposed
    Left making false flag attacks against own offices exposed
    False quotes of Limbaugh exposed
    Multiple Czars exposed and still going

    I understand as well as you that we should be having honest debates about the issues. I just don’t think it’s going to happen for a while. Not until all the corruption and lies have been exposed and justice has run its course. I have a feeling that things are just beginning to heat up.

    Van Jones and now Kevin Jennings

    I don’t think I made the comment on here. I think it was actually on a different blog. Either way, I mentioned NAMBLA in a sort of distant connection to people associated with Candidate Obama at the time. I got blasted for that comment and I just let it ride. As President Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” Kevin Jennings’ job is to protect students from harassment and harm. Jennings has championed NAMBLA’s causes and lauded as a pedophilia advocate. It is unbelievable the type of people in the current administration.

    The irony at this point in time is that while the Democrats have the majority they are unable to do much with it. All the right has now is principality. Fortunately for them, the current administration is providing an unbelievable amount of controversy to the fire. What days we live in.

    1. From the HuffingtonPost on Kevin Jennings… He is getting slammed by the right for “hiding pedophilia”. The below article blasts that out of the water, methinks. With Keving Jennings, unlike with Van Jones, the right is getting a little overzealous.

      Conservative media figures have set their sights on another obscure Obama administration official. This time it’s Kevin Jennings, assistant deputy secretary of education for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

      Right-wingers, outraged by Jennings’ work as a gay-rights advocate, claim that he has expressed a desire to spread homosexuality among schoolkids, contempt for religion and enthusiasm for drug use. (The Family Research Council has a scare-quote filled petition circulating.) Those hits have been rebuffed by people who have actually worked with Jennings. But the charge that’s gained traction is that Jennings, while a high school teacher, failed to report a statutory rape. He said in a talk that he counseled a student who went home with a man he met in a bus station:

      JENNINGS: And I said, “Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?” And he said, “Well, I’m tired.” And I said, “Well, we all are tired and we all got to school today.” And he said, “Well, I was out late last night.” And I said, “What were you doing out late on a school night?” And he said, “Well, I was in Boston.” Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, “What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?” He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, “Well, I met somebody in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.” High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn’t know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly, so I finally — my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before — I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.” He said to me something I will never forget. He said “Why should I, my life isn’t worth saving anyway.”
      But the student was actually at least 16 at the time. The age of consent in Massachusetts was (and still is) 16; all Jennings did was choose not to share his knowledge of a consensual, legal sexual relationship. Nevertheless, Fox News and the Washington Times have reported that Jennings was “encouraging” statutory rape. The distorted story was picked up by Politico’s Mike Allen, who called it a “problem”: “He didn’t seem to recognize that given this young man’s age, this was an assault, and that it should be reported.” ABC News and the Associated Press have also reported on the story.

      White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the Jennings critics “sad” on Thursday.

      “I think it’s a shame to watch what they do,” Gibbs said. “I hope that as people watch, they’ll match up the actual truth with what’s being said on some of these occasions.”

      Fox News’ Sean Hannity has been particularly focused on Jennings; Greg Sargent speculates that he’s jealous of the attention his colleague Glenn Beck got for his successful crusade against Van Jones.

      The ombudsmen of the New York Times and the Washington Post chastised their papers for not picking up on previous smear campaigns fueled by fringe conservatives; how they will handle the attacks on Jennings remains to be seen.

      Read more at:

  11. LOL, I meant effectivly not effetely. A Freudian slip that I think makes more sense anyway. I’ll go with it. 🙂

  12. .Ok, here is the connection that is being made. I don’t think he came out and said he supports NAMBLA. I’m pretty sure that’s a false statement.

    This is from Jennings speech to “the GLSEN Mid-Atlantic Conference on October 25, 1997 in New York, as reported in the January-February 1998 edition of the Lambda Journal”:

    Jennings said the following, “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before. Everybody thought Harry Hay was crazy in 1948, and they knew something about him which he apparently did not–they were right, he was crazy. You are all crazy. We are all crazy. All of us who are thinking this way are crazy, because you know what? Sane people keep the world the same [shitty] old way it is now. It’s the people who think, ‘No, I can envision a day when straight people say, “So what if you’re promoting homosexuality?”‘ Or straight kids say, ‘Hey, why don’t you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?’ That if we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward. To not lose our faith, to not lose our belief that the world can, indeed, be a different place. And think how much can change in one lifetime if in Harry Hay’s one very short life, he saw change from not even one person willing to join him to a million people willing to travel to Washington to join him.”

    On Hay,

    Hay fought for NAMBLA’s inclusion in the International Lesbian and Gay Association and once carried a sign proclaiming “NAMBLA Walks With Me.” Hay was a featured speaker at several NAMBLA conferences and at forums on man/boy love.

    Yes it is an indirect connection to NAMBLA but, a connection without a doubt. I doubt that Jennings was unaware of Hays association with NAMBLA. I don’t think it was a major concern to him at the time he gave the speech. What he was unaware of at the time of giving his speech was that one day he would find his exact words dug up and displayed on the national scene

  13. Hey Chaze77
    if you are calling socialism discussions nonsense, you need to consider the 100 Million murdered by Socialists/Communists/Liberals/Fascists/Progressives….er…what do they call themselves next to hide their agenda?…. in the 20th Century. Wait, no, really, wait, let’s give it one more chance to murder some more!

    1. I am not lessening the tragedy of the millions of lives lost in any political fight. What I am calling nonsense is all of your comments that lump not just the Obama Administration- but liberals in general- into the same category as Socialists/Communists/Fascists. Liberals are not Communists simply because they do not agree with YOU. Progressives are not Socialists simply because they do not agree with YOU. THAT is the nonsensical part. Anyone who doesn’t think exactly as you do is labeled an ugly name, and quite frankly, I don’t give a shit who you are- family or not- if you plan to keep posting in this forum, you will knock it off. You are not interested in discussing politics, rather you prefer to spread hate. You are not looking for a responsible solution to the many problems that plague us, you are simply expecting that people do things YOUR way as the only way or they are wrong- or worse- they are fascists, communists and socialists.

      Take a step back, take a deep breath, and relax. It’s a blog for Christ’s sake.

      Jackasses, evil doers and fear mongers exist across the entire political spectrum. For every left-wing nut job you can name, I can name a right-winger that is equally crazy. I have respect for educated, thoughtful people, regardless of their political beliefs. What I have no respect for is the radical talk- a territory you are dangerously close to jumping into with both feet. In fact, I am being generous.

      So either come to the table with some words that are conducive to respectful discussion, or don’t come at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s