If you watch what use to be the main stream media for up to date news? You have been sucking hind tit for over a half year now. It is no wonder you literally know nothing until after the fact MAYBE !

It seems Maxine Waters wants to find out what the “tea baggers” or the “birthers” have to say for themselves. She wants the journalists to just get out there and interview them.

Well perhaps Ms. Waters needs to do that little job for herself.

There is nothing better than first hand information.
Don’t you think?

Those who did not know all of this was on the horizon?
They are getting paid to know.
Perhaps we need to cut off their pay until they have the will to do their job which is BE IN THE KNOW.

Perhaps Carter will do ALL of the USA a favor and simply QUIT THINKING !

This is the same Jimmy Carter who is directly responsible for where we are today with Iran isn’t he?

Apparently those using the racecard instead of a legitimate response for what “we the people” think or do in order to take back our country are CLUE LESS to the further damage THEY DO TO THEIR OWN CAUSE.

I have to wonder how much more stupid will all of this get.
With friends and helpers like this Obama will be taken down by his own supporters sooner than expected.

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on September 16, 2009

As any good Persian rug dealer knows, you have to hold back a bargaining chit so that you can whip it out at the very end to tie down the sale. That’s how Obama is playing the so-called public option in his health care program. His plan seems to be to combine its abandonment with some form of tort reform and try to buy off some Republicans – maybe only Maine’s Olympia Snowe – to give moderate Democrats enough confidence in the veneer of bi-partisanship to win their backing for his bill.

But it’s a fraud and a trick.

Here’s why:

(a) Whether or not there is a public option makes no difference in the fundamental objection most elderly have to the bill – that it guts Medicare and Medicaid. All of the bills now under consideration cut these two programs by one half of a trillion dollars. And all of them require the medical community to serve thirty to fifty million new patients without any concomitant growth in the number of doctors or nurses. These cuts and shortages will lead to draconian rationing of medical care for the elderly, whether under a public option or not.

(b) The most likely proposal is to replace the public option with some form of buyer’s co-op. But since there is no currently existing co-op to serve as a vehicle for health insurance, it would have to be formed. By who? The government, of course. That would mean, as a practical matter, that the “co-op option” would be a government run plan for several years. In fact, they may not get around to setting up a co-op at all.

(c) The other alternative, mentioned by Senator Snowe herself, would be for a “trigger” mechanism. This provision would require the creation of a public alternative to private insurance plans if, after a specified period of time, they did not lower rates to a pre-determined level. Given the escalation of health care costs, it is almost inevitable that this provision would lead to a government plan. And, anyway, who says that the government insurance option would be more successful in reducing costs?

But Obama has to at least appear to be willing to compromise, so he has invented the idea of re-packaging the public option in order to seem to be flexible.

The key, here, is not to be distracted by the debate over the public option. It matters very much to private insurance companies whether the government becomes their competitor, but, for the elderly (and the near-elderly), the key concern is not the public option by the rationing and cuts projected under the program.

In the Clinton Administration, we worked hard to kill the proposed Medicare cuts and are no less committed to stopping them in the Obama presidency. That they were once proposed by the right and are now being pushed by the left makes no difference. A cut is a cut is a cut. And Medicare should not be cut.

This is no surprise.
The powers that be in Washington have a mode of operation.
If you disagree with US … SHUT UP !
If you don’t WE WILL SHUT YOU UP !

Do any of you know ONE (1) thing the government does well other than spend OUR MONEY (money they do not even have yet)?

So why on earth do I want them to regulate what any of us say or hear?
What exactly is it they fail to understand about the people listen to what they WANT TO LISTEN TO?
Is it not evidant that the Main Stream Media is quickly biting the dust because of the government propoganda they spew?
Apparently the true problem is most of us ARE NOT falling for the “Mushroom S***” they are trying to force feed us.

This is one issue we all better leap on like ugly on a stick.

Maybe some impeachment efforts need to be started nation wide?
All we need to do is start somewhere … pour our grassroots dollars into one area until that person is gone.
It only takes one person GONE to whip others in line.

Unless the rest are up for political suicide that is.

Take a gander at the latest clip:

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a “First Amendment New Deal,” a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves, WND has learned.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Until now, Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “fairness doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

Full story …