28. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won’t just be “one of those Washington gimmicks.” Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won’t have any teeth.

Obama confronted some tough realities in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, chief among them that Americans are continuing to lose their health insurance as Congress struggles to pass an overhaul.

Yet some of his ideas for moving ahead skirted the complex political circumstances standing in his way.

A look at some of Obama’s claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.”

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.
Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel,” he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain’s.

OBAMA: “I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

OBAMA: Discussing his health care initiative, he said, “Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan.”

THE FACTS: The Democratic legislation now hanging in limbo on Capitol Hill aims to keep people with employer-sponsored coverage — the majority of Americans under age 65 — in the plans they already have. But Obama can’t guarantee people won’t see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans. Because of elements such as new taxes on insurance companies, insurers could change what they offer or how much it costs. Moreover, Democrats have proposed a series of changes to the Medicare program for people 65 and older that would certainly pinch benefits enjoyed by some seniors. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted cuts for those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans.

OBAMA: The president issued a populist broadside against lobbyists, saying they have “outsized influence” over the government. He said his administration has “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.” He also said it’s time to “require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or Congress” and “to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”

THE FACTS: Obama has limited the hiring of lobbyists for administration jobs, but the ban isn’t absolute; seven waivers from the ban have been granted to White House officials alone. Getting lobbyists to report every contact they make with the federal government would be difficult at best; Congress would have to change the law, and that’s unlikely to happen. And lobbyists already are subject to strict limits on political giving. Just like every other American, they’re limited to giving $2,400 per election to federal candidates, with an overall ceiling of $115,500 every two years.

OBAMA: “Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. … And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.”

THE FACTS: The success of the Obama-pushed economic stimulus that Congress approved early last year has been an ongoing point of contention. In December, the administration reported that recipients of direct assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. The number was based on self-reporting by recipients and some of the calculations were shown to be in error.
The Congressional Budget Office has been much more guarded than Obama in characterizing the success of the stimulus plan. In November, it reported that the stimulus increased the number of people employed by between 600,000 and 1.6 million “compared with what those values would have been otherwise.” It said the ranges “reflect the uncertainty of such estimates.” And it added, “It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.”

OBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress “to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.”

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN “so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.

OBAMA: “The United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.”

THE FACTS: Despite insisting early last year that they would complete the negotiations in time to avoid expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in early December, the U.S. and Russia failed to do so. And while officials say they think a deal on a new treaty is within reach, there has been no breakthrough. A new round of talks is set to start Monday. One important sticking point: disagreement over including missile defense issues in a new accord. If completed, the new deal may arguably be the farthest-reaching arms control treaty since the original 1991 agreement. An interim deal reached in 2002 did not include its own rules on verifying nuclear reductions.

OBAMA: Drawing on classified information, he claimed more success than his predecessor at killing terrorists: “And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008.”
THE FACTS: It is an impossible claim to verify. Neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has published enemy body counts, particularly those targeted by armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. The pace of drone attacks has increased dramatically in the last 18 months, according to congressional officials briefed on the secret program.

FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission - Yahoo! News

Note:  President Omaba said, “I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission.” …….uh, Mr. President, we already have a bipartisan commission with 535 members to handle budgetary decisions — it’s called Congress.

Posted in Corruption And Lies, President Obama, The Democratic Party, Politics | No Comments »

28. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Spending freeze – The AP points out that it will save less than 1% of predicted deficits over the next ten years — and that Obama scoffed at such a plan when John McCain proposed it in 2008.

Health care – Obama said the Democratic plan would allow people to keep their insurance and their doctors, but the bill doesn’t guarantee either. Their plan has massive cuts to Medicare Advantage, which would definitely affect coverage of a large portion of America’s seniors and disabled.

Lobbyists – Obama has not “excluded” lobbyists from his administration; he’s hired over a dozen for key posts, and the AP notes seven of those waivers were for White House posts. Obama called for restrictions on lobbyist contributions, but those already exist.

Two million jobs saved through Porkulus – The CBO puts the theoretical range between 600K and 1.6 million, but also cautions that the methodology of estimating jobs “saved or created” is “uncertain.” The last detailed numbers the White House produced totaled 650,000 — and were found to be highly inaccurate.

Openness: “Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN “so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.”

Another whopper the AP doesn’t mention. Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com

Posted in Corruption And Lies, President Obama, The Democratic Party, Politics | No Comments »

28. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

President Obama gives a good speech. He’s smooth, unruffled by audience response, good at a timely ad-lib remark, and knows how to win over a tough crowd–all skills that were in evidence at last night’s State of the Union address. But he’s also good at telling whoppers.

Here are a few.

Talking about health care, and the stalled bills in House and Senate which have become so encrusted with pro-industry amendments that the whole process should be referred to as the Health Industry Enrichment Act, Obama said at one point, addressing the doubts many in Congress and among the broader public have about those bills, “If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.”

Hm-m-m. Actually, he has not been eager to see other ideas at all. John Conyers has had another idea: extending Medicare to cover everyone. He had it in the form of a bill, HR 676, but at the urging of the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kept that bill from even getting a hearing. Earlier, almost a year ago, Obama held a conference at the White House to hear ideas about health care reform, but he excluded from that conference any advocates of what is called “single-payer”–shorthand for a Canadian-style health system in which the government insures everyone, and sets the reimbursement amounts for doctors and hospitals, medical services of all kinds, and drugs.

And yet, expanding Medicare to cover everyone, as I’ve written several times on this site, would probably end up costing less than the federal government and state and local governments (and of course ultimately taxpayers) already are spending on Medicaid, Veteran’s health care, hospital charity care, and other public medical programs, and in any event would, even if raising taxes slightly, simultaneously eliminate the health care costs for insurance currently paid by employers, employees and the self-employed, while also giving the government enormous power to negotiate lower costs for drugs, doctors and hospitals. Because the program would be larger and more powerful with respect to the private health care delivery system, it would also be able to reduce the cost of providing health care to the elderly who are already on Medicare.

That is to say, there is, already operating for 45 million elderly citizens, a health care program that, if expanded to all, would, as the president asked, “bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses.”

But the truth is, he doesn’t want to talk about it and doesn’t want to even hear about it.

The second big whopper was Iraq. There the president, to loud applause, said he would have all combat troops out of Iraq by August of this year. At another point, though, he went further, saying that “all our troops” would be “coming home.” The truth, though, is that they won’t be. In fact, though, as many as 50,000 US troops will remain in Iraq after this August. Whether they will be “in combat” or not is really not up to them. If they are attacked, of course they will be in combat. They may well be sent into battle too, though who knows if we’ll hear about it. There are unlikely to be too many members of the press with them, as the focus shifts to Afghanistan. But 50,000 is a lot of troops–much more than the US has in South Korea, for instance. It’s hardly an end to the war in Iraq.

Third, the president slipped by the new big war, Afghanistan, in an astonishingly abrupt single paragraph. Think about it. He has ordered an escalation of that conflict, where the US already has committed 70,000 troops, with another 30,000 on the way, not counting perhaps 50-60,000 more private mercenaries, and has called for a new aggressive strategy of capturing and holding territory–a strategy that is bound to increase both US and innocent Afghani casualties–and he only said a couple of sentences about it.

And those sentences were full of lies. Obama said the US is “training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home,” but he knows his own advisors are telling him that those Afghan military forces are incapable of being expanded to do that job. The whole country is basically illiterate and not capable of being trained to handle much of the equipment, the military and police are hopelessly corrupt, and the tribal system makes a unified national army a pipe-dream. He said the US will “reward good governance,” but in fact has allied itself with a corrupt narco-regime led by Hamid Karzai, whose own brother is a leading drug kingpin.

There were more lies and misleading statements through the speech, for example his lie that his administration has “prohibited torture,” but these three alone make it amply clear that the president was not doing his constitutional duty of giving Congress an accurate report on the “state of the union.”

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-are journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Posted in Corruption And Lies, President Obama, The Democratic Party, Politics | No Comments »

26. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic Party campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

Despite President Obama’s long history of criticizing the Bush administration for “sweetheart deals” with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic Party donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan.

Update: Interestingly, according to FedSpending.org, the new contract is about a third of what Checchi got over the previous eight years put together — 92% of which came in full competition.  Suddenly, in the Obama administration, Checchi gets a pass from competition and a big contract to go along with it.  Hope and (Spare) Change!

Update II: Looks like Vincent and Adam Checchi maxed out their donations to Obama in the last election cycle.  Together with their employees, Checchi donated over $14,000 to Democratic presidential candidates.  They also tossed a few spare dollars to the DNC and MoveOn.

Update III: Real Clear Politics has Obama himself invoking Halliburton while saying that the days of “sweetheart deals” to campaign donors and lobbyists would be over if he was elected President.

Posted in Federal Government, Corruption And Lies, President Obama, The Democratic Party, Politics | No Comments »

26. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

During Tuesday night’s coverage of the Massachusetts special election, CNN and MSNBC aired only a fraction of the Republican candidate’s speech. Fox News Channel aired both candidates’ speeches in their entirety.

When Martha Coakley (D) took the podium to concede the election, all three channels aired most or all of the eight-minute speech. However, Republican Scott Brown’s address was cut short on CNN after just seven minutes. On MSNBC Keith Olbermann cut Brown’s mic and instead attacked the Republican candidate, talked about “teabaggers”, and ran commercials. CNN only ran 26% of Brown’s speech, while MSNBC aired 37%. Fox News Channel carried 100% of both speeches:

Yes, we know the Brown speech ran longer (27 minutes). But really, isn’t this exactly the sort of thing Media Matters would trumpet if positions were reversed? You know it is.

Posted in News - Media Matters, WakeUp America | No Comments »

23. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Candidate Press Release, dated January 21, 2010.

George Erdel; Democrat candidate for the United States House or Representatives, Tennessee 6th District.

Last night we witnessed history in the making as the U.S. Senate Seat formally occupied by Senator Edward Kennedy was lost to a somewhat conservative Republican candidate.  This upset, in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a margin greater than 3 to 1 should send a strong message to our party leaders that business can not continue as it has for the past year.  While we have been the party in power with solid super majorities in both houses of congress our party has fallen victim to the actions of the most liberal members of our party.

The Massachusetts election told us that a vast majority of Americans, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent, are fed up wit the status quo in Washington.  They have clearly told us that pending legislation such as the health care reform which our party has passed in the House and Senate is the wrong way to go in our efforts to improve the best health care system in the world.   They also express their dissatisfaction with the extreme Liberal legislation such as the Cap and Trade bill, the record government deficits as a result of government bailouts of major industries in the nation.  America by I large has not supported these programs, and in Massachusetts they said they still do not like the manner in which Pelosi and Reid have ignored the electorate while pushing forward at break neck speed with their far left agenda. 

Their message is right on target.  While we are the party in power we could have passed reasonable and logical health care reform, had we not allowed the leadership under Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to force upon the nation a bill that was crafted by the most Liberal members of our party, and special interests groups while shutting out all conservative Democrats as well as both the liberals and conservatives of the Republican Party.

As the only candidate having qualified by the Tennessee Department of State, to run for the Tennessee 6th District being vacated by Congressman Bart Gordon next year, I respectfully ask of our County, State and National Democrat party leaders that they take a long hard look at their contributions to the actions which led up to the Loss of this Senate seat in Massachusetts.  This loss, coming only months after suffering similar major losses in Virginia and New Jersey in November, is nothing more than a restatement of the same message voters sent in those elections. 

Failure to heed the warning of these voters will come at great peril to the Democrat Party, should our party power brokers and Congressional leaders continue on the same reckless path they followed during 2009.

As a Democrat I am ashamed and disgusted of the manner in which the House and Senate leadership under the command of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  For leaders having promised at the beginning of their reigns to be the most transparent, and voicing plans to maintain the highest level of integrity and government ethics, they have instead resurrected the corrupt smoke filled back room politics from years past, as well as demonstrating that political prostitution is alive and well within our party. 

Americans are tired of this and they are demonstrating their dissatisfaction by turning out during bad weather in record numbers to clearly state their case.  Will our Democrat leaders take heed and begin to behave in a manner consistent with their promises during the 2008 campaign or will they continue on the same shameful track to our own detriment.

The Massachusetts Election clearly demonstrates that there are many more rank and file conservative Democrats than the party leadership wishes to acknowledge.  As a Conservative Democrat Candidate I certainly hope that the message sent by these recent losses to conservative candidates gets through to our party leadership.
George Erdel is the only candidate to have qualified to be on the ballot for the Tennessee 6th Congressional District Primary election I August.

Web site: http://www.georgefortennessee.com

Posted in Candidates - 2010, Congress, The Democratic Party, Politics | No Comments »

23. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Murfreesboro’s George Erdel (pronounced er-dell) is the first candidate in Tennessee to qualify for a federal race this year. He is running for Tennessee’s Sixth District U.S. House of Representatives position that’s being vacated with Congressman Bart Gordon’s retirement. The local Democrat filed his petition and application with the Rutherford County Election Commission on Thursday (1/7/10). He told WGNS News that within an hour and half, the Election Commission’s Anita White notified him that all 39 names on the petition were validated. Erdel then presented a confirmation letter from the county to the State Election Commission in Nashville. “That’s when I learned about being the first candidate in the state to qualify.”

Erdel supports the right to bear arms, in fact he was armed and wearing a shoulder holster during the interview at WGNS. He noted his strong opposition to abortions and feels that global warming is a farce. He said, “It’s just another way for liberals to tax us for the energy we use.”

He said, “If elected, I’m there for the people of the sixth district, not for Pelosi or her cronies.” There is more information about George Erdell at http://www.georgefortennessee.com

Posted in Candidates - 2010, Running For Office, Congress, The Democratic Party, Politics | No Comments »

23. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

GUEST COLUMN: State needs conservative Democrat in House.

I want to thank Mr. Sam Stockard for his opinion column Jan. 12, 2010. I also wish to thank him for the opportunity to set the record straight about my candidacy and campaign for the United States House of Representatives, Tennessee 6th District.

Mr. Stockard emphasized my passive use of the term “Dixiecrat” which I merely used as a reference to values I consider to be, at their core, traditional Democratic Party ideals. I used it because of the historically conservative nature of the Democrats and Dixiecrats when it came to respecting the Constitution, as well as social and economic justice. Traditional Democrats, like JFK and others believed these were not only realistic, but were only guaranteed by their strict adherence to the United Sates Constitution. I believe this also.

Contrary to the title of Mr. Stockard’s column, I am not seeking office under the mantle of “Dixiecrat.” I am a Democrat, and I am running as such. To date, I am the only candidate having qualified to run from any political party. I will be on the August primary ballot as a Democrat.

When one looks at the wording of the very first Democratic Party platform, penned in 1840 it becomes evident that those Democrats were very conservative, and stood for the working people.

It was those conservative values which the National Democratic Party abandoned years ago. What happened to our party? It was infiltrated and overrun by liberals. These liberals began to cater to every disenfranchised group of malcontents that came knocking on the door with promises of block voting in return for tax dollars from the working class.

As the Democratic Party became more ardently liberal during the 1950s and 1960s, many lifelong Democrats began to look for representation by other parties that more closely shared their values. My parents left the Democratic Party when Ronald Reagan joined the Republican Party in 1962. Now, nearly 50 years later, liberal ideology is also so deeply entrenched within the Republican Party that most Americans see little difference in either party.

As a result of the policies put in place by the liberals of both parties, America today is traveling on a highway toward a bridge that is out. If we do not alter course immediately following the next election, the America we knew growing up will only be chronicled in history books.

Fellow Democrats with more name recognition than me have commented that the 6th District can remain in the Democrat column if the party chooses a conservative, pro-gun, pro-life candidate. Prior to my entry into the 6th District race, such a candidate did not exist. I am that candidate. What the liberal faction of our party does not like is the fact that I am conservative on all issues, not just on issues of the Second Amendment and abortion. Tennessee voters have watched the past year as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid repeatedly capitulated to the beck and call of the president, against the overwhelming will of the people, in order to blaze his socialist trail across America on issues such as cap-and-trade, and socialized medicine.

Tennesseans of the 6th District are ready to take their Tennessee fighting spirit to Washington and reclaim our Congress from the liberals of both parties. Neither I, nor any other single representative, will be able to fix the problem in one term or several terms for that matter. Remember it took 50 years to get here. What will I do? If you send me to represent you in the 6th District, I will work closely with conservative representatives of both parties to turn our nation onto the solid, fiscally sound road that takes us away from the irreparably broken “bail-out” bridge that threatens our prosperity for future generations.

I invite you to join me in taking the Tennessee fight to Washington to begin the tasks ahead. Together we can do it, but we must start with this year’s elections. I will accept all invitations to visit any group to discuss the vital issues that threaten us. Contact information can be found in my Web site at http://www.georgefortennessee.com

Posted in Candidates - 2010, Running For Office, The Democratic Party, Politics | No Comments »

22. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Scott Brown’s election victory in Massachusetts represents a direct response to the false promises of hope and change made by president Barack Obama.

Brown took the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat to become the first Republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972.

Brown could now provide the telling vote to prevent the Democratic-led health care plan from progressing, a fact that did not escape voters who vented their anger at what they now see as a year of broken promises and let downs by our President Obama.

Voters noted that health care and a more general backlash against the Obama Administration were key factors in the election.

Posted in President Obama, The Democratic Party | No Comments »

22. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security, together with PDD 51, a Bush era executive order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminate the last roadblocks to declaring martial law in the United States.

It should be strongly noted the decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

In other words, this act would not give Congress any oversight, no rights for business or people to take any legal or civil actions.  And it basically tells the American people to go fornicate themselves.

The new order, which is entitled Establishment of the Council of Governors (PDF), creates a body of ten state governors directly appointed by Obama who will work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.

The governors will liaise with officials from Northcom, Homeland Security, the National Guard as well as DoD officials from the Pentagon “in order to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State governments,” according to the executive order.

The exective order combines seamlessly with Presidential Decision Directive 51 to hand Obama dictator status in times of declared, and not necessarily genuine, national emergency.

In May 2007, former President George W. Bush sparked much alarm by openly declaring himself to be a dictator in the event of a national emergency under provisions that effectively nullify the U.S. constitution, but such an infrastructure has been in place for over 70 years and this merely represented a re-authorization of martial law powers.

Legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic “security”, was signed earlier without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to “modify, rescind, or render dormant” such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.

These new powers have now been handed over to President Obama, allowing him, along with a body of councillors personally selected by him, to declare martial law without there necessarily being a genuine national emergency, greasing the skids for U.S. troops and National Guard to conduct domestic policing of the American people.

In October 2008, Northcom, a Unified Combatant Command of the United States military based out of Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, was assigned the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team returning from Iraq. An alarming September 8 Army Times report which was later denied after it sparked controversy stated that the troops would be used by Northcom to deal with “civil unrest and crowd control” in the aftermath of a national emergency.

The Obama executive order states that governors will help advise the feds on National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

The fact that the order further blurs the lines between state and federal power, as well as greasing the skids for more military involvement in domestic affairs has stoked fears that Obama may be laying the groundwork for his promised “national civilian security force”.

In July 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio (D – OR) was asked by his constituents to see what was contained within the classified portion of the White House’s plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

Since DeFazio also sits on the Homeland Security Committee and has clearance to view classified material, the request would have appeared to be routine, but the Congressman was unceremoniously denied all access to view the documents, and the White House wouldn’t even give an excuse as to why he was barred.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio told the Oregonian.

“We’re talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America,” DeFazio says. “I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.”

“Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right,” DeFazio concluded.

Conservatives and libertarians responded to the announcement by expressing their suspicion that Obama is preparing to give governors their marching orders in targeting “anti-government” types that have long been characterized as a terrorist threat by the feds in numerous reports stretching back over a decade.

“There is a definite purpose to this,” wrote one commenter on the popular Free Republic website, “The initial steps toward a domestic “Civilian Security Force” in each state, as called for by the fascisti during the campaign. It will be coordinated at the state level, under the authority of DHS and DoD and assorted agencies. The provision will be made for it to be “federalized” in an emergency, as is the National Guard.”

“This is a concrete step toward eliminating the independent authority and dissolving the sovereignty of the several States. It lays the groundwork for the end of the United States as a Republic,” she adds.

Others warn that Obama could be preparing to cancel elections under the justification of a national emergency, a fear that was often expressed when Bush was in office but one that never materialized.

However, the executive order clearly represents another assault on Posse Comitatus, the 1878 law that bars the military from exercising domestic police powers, which was temporarily annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act before parts of it were later repealed.

View the actual executive order by President Obama on our site at:

http://www.democraticreformparty.com/dictator-obama.pdf

Note: Without question, this is a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Posted in Federal Government, Socialism In America, WakeUp America, President Obama, Constitution Violations | No Comments »

21. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Some facts about the federal debt:

It took the country from George Washington until Ronald Reagan—approximately 200 years—to reach the first $1 trillion in debt.

When politicians talk about reducing the deficit, they are not talking about the debt. Politicians driven by short-term election goals focus on short-term problems. For example, President Bush once told us the problem was shrinking, pointing to  the  annual federal budget deficit, which fell from a high of $413 billion in fiscal 2004 to about $163 billion in fiscal 2007. The debt, meanwhile, continues to skyrocket.

All of the taxes you pay, including Social Security, are used for today’s government services and benefits, not saved for the future.

According to the government’s Office of Management and Budget, “there are no economic assets in the Social Security trust fund.”

According to the Government Accountability Office, if spending on government retirement programs remains on its current course and revenues grow at their historical averages, interest on the debt could skyrocket from its current 9 percent to almost 30 percent of the budget by 2040.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernake has stated that the time to solve this problem was “ten years ago.” Meanwhile, Congressional Quarterly reports that a delay of even 10 years in solving this will double the required pain to solve it.

We are now considering making the nation’s fiscal problems much worse by expanding entitlements and bail-outs.  Fiscal 2009 will add more than a trillion dollars to the federal debt via deficit spending and as much as another five trillion in unfunded liabilities.

The above sounds bad enough—but it gets even worse. Together with unfunded liabilities (all of the benefits that the government has promised to seniors, Baby Boomers, and other citizens) our nation is in the hole for nearly $62 trillion dollars.

 Politicians will tell you that the federal debt is around $12 trillion.

That’s more than $200,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and it’s growing every day.

We have been diagnosed with fiscal cancer,” says David Walker, the retired chief auditor of the United States government. “It seems clear that our nation’s current fiscal path is unsustainable.”

As the people who pay the bills, it’s time to demand more of our political leaders—and to demand real solutions to an issue that could soon lead to a crisis. That’s what Truth in 2010 is all about. Join us today.

Why does our national debt matter?

Nonpartisan financial experts tell us that our nation faces a unique set of pressures (to spend increasing amounts on health care, to sustain retirees’ benefits with fewer active workers, and to fund the growing amount of interest on the national debt) that could culminate in a massive economic crisis.

Bob Bixby, the head of the Concord Coalition, points out that no one can predict when this crisis will erupt—or if it will unfold as “a long, slow erosion in the standard of living.” To each of us, that would mean less choices in life, less freedom, and less of the things we take for granted each day.

With its shaky financial position and dozens of unfunded promises, the United States also faces threats to national security. With its financial assets in quicksand, the US would be less able to compete on an international level and less able to counter threats from competitors abroad. As our nation slips deeper and deeper into debt, it loses its flexibility, its power, and even its ability to operate on a very basic level.

The bottom line: the national debt matters because we, the people, are the ones who pay the bills. We are the ones who will be impacted by a financial crisis. That’s why it is crucial to spread the Truth in 2010.

Posted in Federal Debt, Social Security, Federal Government | No Comments »

20. January 2010 by Democratic Party News - The News of the Democratic Party.

Submitted by George Falters

We should remember the history on how the progressives and liberals have taking over our Democratic Party.

In 1972, McGovern and the far left captured control of the Democratic Party.  Even during Bill Clinton’s supposedly “moderate” era, the party was still run by “progressives” (what Marxists call themselves to hide the fact they are Marxists). The remaining pro-freedom Democrats, like “Scoop” Jackson, were forced out of the party. As Ronald Reagan (a former Democrat and labor union president) said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me.”

By 1998 the progressive and liberals had succeeded in taking over our Democratic Party, for every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate voted to keep President Clinton in office when they knew and publicly admitted he was guilty of multiple felonies for which the House impeached him.

Posted in Corruption And Lies, Political History, President Clinton, The Democratic Party | No Comments »