Newt's A-Twitter About Sotomayor's Racism

Newt Gingrich, who is the top Twitterer at Top Conservatives on Twitter (TCOT), has called for the immediate withdrawal of recent nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, based on his classification of her (rightly) as a racist.

Sotomayor stated in 2001, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The American Bar Association also lists Sotomayor as a member of the racist group, the National Council of La Raza.

Following the nomination, Gingrich sent the following messages on Twitter:

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism."

"White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

Thirty-Nine Per Cent of N.C. Realtors Disapprove of Obama

Of course, the primary industry that is hurting, and the industry that started the economic meltdown, has been the banking, mortgage, and real estate industry.

The Obama real estate plan has attempted to subsidize mortgage interest rates so that payments are capped at 31% of household income for troubled borrowers. More than 55,000 homeowners have received modifications, which should have led to significant stabilization of the national real estate market. And after initially pledging $75 billion to this project, the administration has announced that it is expanding the program to include more borrowers.

"These are critical steps in stemming the foreclosure crisis and stabilizing the housing market, both of which are critical to our economic recovery," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

During the week of May 14, homes in danger of foreclosure jumped 32%, however.

Even the administration offering an $8,000 tax break to new home purchasers, and the consequent monetization of that tax credit, i.e, allowing the tax credit to be used as a portion of a down payment, the stimulus plan has had little effect on the housing market.

HomeGain.com surveys Realtors as to their outlook (both nationally and regionally) on the housing market. The North Carolina market outlooks were recently posted on HomeGain.com's blog.

With all of this stimulus activity, 39% of Realtors disapprove of Obama's job performance.

Now of course, that lack of support could be the result of racism, or it could come from a simple realization that not only is the stimulus not helping either the general economy or the housing market. Obama's supporters will assert the first.

But which is more likely?

Ready to have Uncle Sam as Your Landlord?

Bawney Fwank... uhhhhh, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) recently let the cat out of the bag. It is bad enough that Democrats have (at times it seems intentionally) undermined the housing market, but now they would like to become your (Soviet-style) landlord.

"One of the problems that we got into was we did way too much homeownership and way too little rental housing. And [we need to start] getting the federal government back into the business of rental housing."

Here's your key! Welcome to the Democratic Socialist Ghetto....

CBO On Obama Recession: Years To Recovery

Today, the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, on the CBO Director's blog, summarized his most recent testimony before Congress.

* While a "recovery" (read: the end of "negative growth") is expected in the second half of this year, unemployment will continue to spike and will stabilize this year in excess of 10%.

* Unemployment's return to pre-Obama levels will likely take "several years" (read: when The Messiah is no longer in office).

* "Even if the economy returns to positive growth this year, the loss in output and income during this downturn will be huge" (note: even if - doesn't sound like we can expect a return to positive growth this year).

* The difference between "actual" and "potential" output of the economy (read: lost production) will exceed $1 trillion both this year and next, and "CBO’s forecast in August is likely to show even larger shortfalls in output over the next few years" (read: the brakes have effectively been put on the economy).

* "The current recession and its aftermath will be the most severe economic downturn of the postwar period."

* "Most experts also believe that persistent large deficits reduce capital accumulation and thereby slow the growth of output and incomes over time. Thus, the large deficits that CBO projects for the years after the economy has returned to full employment are more worrisome" (read: while the CBO is giving a grudging pass to the current $1.7 trillion deficit, it is sounding the alarm that the party can't go on forever, and Obama's spending is going to have to stop).

*"The sharp increase in debt this year and next raises the risk that investors might lose confidence in U.S. government debt as a safe haven" (read: hyperinflation has already started, and we can't trust the collective mainstream media of other countries to keep it a secret like our own home-grown fourth estate is pleased to do).

Odd that the mainstream media hasn't really made any of these points since the Director's testimony was just yesterday. Perhaps CBS and CNN and MSNBC do not know that the CBO director has a blog...?

Liberal Hypocrisy on Card Check

Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama promised during his empty-suit campaign for president, "I'll make [card-check] the law of the land" after the election. This was, of course, a promise to one of his largest en banc constituencies - labor unions - whose perceived best interests do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of business, the economy, or the country.

The woefully-named Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA (perhaps the only conceivable analogy would be to name abortion-on-demand legislation "The Rights of the Unborn Act") would necessarily infringe upon the free choice of employees all over the nation by mandating that voting for unionization of companies, and ultimately of entire industries, no longer be done by secret ballot, but rather by a process known as "card check." Card check would make every individual employee's vote on the issue of unionization a public matter and would open employees up to harassment, intimidation, and pressure from labor goons everywhere.

Don't let the irony escape you here: liberal Democrats, who do not even want voters to have to give any objective evidence of their identity (in my home state Democrats have said that asking a voter to present a driver's license, other state ID, or voter registration card on election day is "racism" and "intimidation") in national and state elections, nevertheless want votes for unionization to be matters of public information. As long as "public" is defined as "union."

Liberal Democrat, Obama, and Union, thy very name is liar and hypocrite. Let's take a look at how important secret ballots have been to these bedwetting socialists in the recent past....

Rep. George Miller (D -CA), the sponsor of the EFCA, wrote a letter cosigned by other congressional Democrats to Mexican officials demanding that secret ballots be respected in 2001 Mexican union elections. He wrote

"We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose."

Get it? Mexican employees need to be protected from "intimidation" in union elections by the secret ballot. Apparently, American workers are not due the same consideration.

Even the egregiously corrupt AFL-CIO has lobbied for the secret ballot - when it served their interests to do so. In a 2001 brief filed by the union with the National Labor Relations Board, the AFL-CIO stated that a secret ballot

"provides the surest means of avoiding decisions which are the result of group pressures and not of individual decisions."

And of course, these bedwetting socialists are more than happy to hide behind the secret ballot when things get sticky for themselves. Asked whom she would support in an interparty vote for the chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York said, "It's a secret ballot, thank the Lord."

EFCA has nothing to do with worker rights. It is a final, last-gasp attempt to resuscitate a (thankfully) dying center of corruption in American politics - trade unions. Since workers are no longer fool enough to vote for unionization out of their own free will - only to later watch the unions destroy their jobs, towns, and lives; just ask Detroit - unions are seeking governmental license to engage in intimidation, pressure, and harassment that they would reject for Mexican workers and themselves in one final attempt to preserve this center of Democratic party corruption.

Hypocrisy and lies - now that's change only Democrats can believe in!

Source: "Fairness Demands Secret Votes" by John Boehner in U.S. News & World Report, March 2009.

Obama's Bacchanalia

I want to make sure that I understand what is going on here.

The Heritage Foundation recently posted figures that show that Obama's budget will send the national budget deficit soaring to levels not seen since World War II. As a percentage of GDP, it will increase from 40% during the Bush years to 82% by 2019.

Now, that means that for every dollar produced in the entire economy, the U.S. will accrue 82 cents in debt during that year.

We hear all of these factoids these days:

* Over the next ten years. the U.S. national debt will increase to nearly $20 trillion (and keep in mind that Obama inherited a $6 trillion national debt on his first day in office, accrued over 230 years of U.S. history).

* For every dollar that the U.S. spends today, it is borrowing 50 cents.

* Obama's cap-and-trade scheme will increase the energy bill of the average American family (not corporation - family) by $1,300 per year.

* Obama's CAFE standards will increase the cost of a new car in America by a figure between $1,300 and $7,000 per car.

* Obama's cap-and-trade scheme will cost 3-4 million jobs all by itself - that's not including other causes of unemployment.

* The current unemployment rate nationwide is approaching 9%.

* March housing starts were down 11%.

* Further deflation of the housing market nationwide is expected to be 10%-15% in some areas.

* More bailouts of the banks, the auto companies, and now California.

* Social Security may be insolvent as early as 2010.

And Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama has the solution: more deficit spending - and that, as far as the eye can see. Oh, and a government takeover of the health care industry as well; you know, with all that EXTRA money that we have.

This orgy, this bacchanalia of spending can only end one of two ways: either Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama is going to spend this nation into utter and complete oblivion, making us a second- or third-world nation, or the people are going to rebel and say "No more!"

Yesterday, the bluest of blue states rose up and said that not one more tax dollar could be granted to its profligate government as California voted down five of six referenda on state spending - approving only a referendum that capped the salaries of state officials.

Rightly or wrongly, voters in the special election refused either to extend new tax hikes or to cap state spending. They also declined to unlock funds that they had voted in better financial times to set aside for special purposes.

Not one county in California passed any of the rejected measures. The state as a whole rejected the emergency spending measures by more than a 60% vote.

Traditional wisdom states that what affects the rest of the country begins in California. Let's hope so. Obama is addicted; he is on a bender. He behaves like a madman on the juice. Only his bacchanalia is an orgy of spending. He is infected with the dread disease of socialism. He needs an intervention.

It is time for the people of the country to take the cue of the people of California and provide it for him.

Honesty, From An Unlikely Source

The February 23 double issue of Time magazine contained an article by Nancy Gibbs titled "25 People to Blame: The good intentions, bad managers and greed behind the meltdown." In it, a "murderer's row" of 25 people (not surprisingly heavy on placing corporate blame, sometimes in the most ludicrous manner; Angelo Mozilo is listed for merely co-founding Countrywide in 1969!) whom the masses may sharpen their pitchforks and skewer in their rage over the recent housing meltdown.

But buried within the usual journalistic [sic] pablum is a heaping big admission - one of the primary souls responsible for the meltdown was Bill Clinton.

"[Bill Clinton] loosened housing rules, putting added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods."

It has been repeatedly alleged on the sanctified pages of Obama Watch that Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus (and their social-engineering fellowtravelers, like Barney Frank) are in fact primarily responsible for the housing meltdown.

Journalists are now officially catching up to the vaunted knowledge available on the blogosphere from conservative bloggers.

Obama Gonna Put a Cap in Your... Wallet

In his crusade to "mobilize the citizenry" to combat the mythical beast of global warming, Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama has promised to "cap greenhouse gases" in such a way that "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Congressman Steve Scalise recently gave an interview to The Amerian Spectator and talked at length about The One's energy policy. While Obama Budget Director Peter Orszac's estimate that, to obtain a mere 15% decrease in carbon emissions would increase the average family's power bill by $1,300 per year is well known, it is less well known that this simultaneous increase in power costs will also be met with an estimated loss of up to 4 million jobs nationwide, according to the National Association of Manufacturers.

I don't know about you, but $1,300 per year is more than my wife and I spend on power bills to begin with. Last year, we spent slightly more than $1,000 on electricity. If we were an "average American family" by Orszac's reckoning, we would have our energy bill increase by well over 100%.

Combined with the rampant overspending of the Obama administration and the impending crisis in Social Security, the United States seemed poised for some much-vaunted Change.

A couple of years from now, if Obama continues to have his way, we will, no doubt, be a second-world nation. I see now that Obama's change is real, but is it what the harebrained masses who voted for him were seeking?

Rahm's Next Big Crisis

We have been treated to a litany of fake crises over the years by our Demofascist Leadership. Who can forget the images of Jimmy Carter in his argyle sweater ushering us through the 72-degree thermostat crisis, or the more recent bullying crisis, or whatever crisis it was to which Rahm Emanuel responded with this laugher: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean is it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

And who can argue with DemoRats' exceedingly fine responses to the various crises our nation has faced? From midnight basketball to the present administration's how-can-I-be-out-of-money-when-I-still-have-checks-left? concept of "fiscal responsibility," Democrats have shown themselves models of courage and competency for at least 30 years (coughcoughcough).

Of course, all of this posing over, and conjuring up of, fake crises seems to have desensitized Modern Progressives to real crises that may be looming on the horizon. Like, oh, say terrorism or Social Security.

In a recent blog entry on the Congressional Budget Director's official blog, the nonpartisan director informed the country that cost of living adjustments for 2010 seem unlikely for Social Security recipients (that will go over well at AARP, don't you think?) and that, based on current economic forecasts, the Social Security surplus will decline to a mere $3 billion in FY 2010.

Now, admittedly, $3 billion sounds like an adequate cushion if you are worried about your 16-year old's prom dress, car insurance, and summer camp.

But there are a couple of factoids that you ought to keep in mind about these projections.

1) The Social Security surplus dipped into the red in February of FY 2009.

2) The current projection of a $3 billion surplus assumes a moderate recovery consequent to Obama's "stimulizing" (I made that up - don't use it!) the economy.

3) That the Social Security Administration's coffers have already experienced an unexpected decline of $1.2 trillion, this figure is quoted by the CBO director himself, based on the recession that arguably started in mid-2008.

It doesn't take much to see that if you do not accept the Obamazombies' Rosy Scenario about the effect of the stimulus package, a similar dip of inflows into Social Security - in the trillions, not billions - is likely, just as happened in February.

Even under the Rosiest of Scenarios, the CBO director is forecasting a Social Security deficit in 2017 - potentially an Obama presidential year. And if The One continues to spend through his administration has he has done in the first 100 days, there will certainly be no hope of spending through that almost assured 2017 deficit in Social Security.

Of course, we hear nothing of this impending wreckage. After all, we have real crises of cyberbullying, sexting, global warming, and Obama Care to worry about.

Not Quite Up to the Job

"The American establishment is taking [Obama's] measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking. They have some reasons to be concerned...."

Howard Fineman, Newsweek Magazine Online, March 10, 2009

It's Over!

Yes, it's over, so declares ABC News.

The recession is over. At least according to Barry Knapp, a strategist at Barclays Capital who specializes in consulting chicken gizzards and crystal balls... I mean, specializes in interpreting economic data and then spouting really cool phrases like "the sweet spot of the recovery" on national television.

Apparently these Ivy League whiz kids missed the story in the Washington Times yesterday that reported April foreclosures up 32% year-over-year. Some "sweet spot."

It may be over, but "it" ain't the recession we are talking about. What is over is the vaunted veneer of objectivity possessed by the media in relation to the executive branch. Trembling like a 15-year old girl in the presence of the "dreamiest" senior in the school, the press keeps sticking its neck out for a President who has shown nothing but incompetence as of yet.

But remember, you heard it here first - the recession is over! The Messiah has come. The Kingdom is established.

Yawn....

NEWSFLASH: Gay Lobby Calls for Obama to be Stripped!

ATLANTIC CITY - President Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama ended up in the middle of an unlikely controversy this morning when Donald Trump revealed that the President shared the same homophobic, intolerant views as did Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

In his announcement that Prejean would be maintaining her crown, The Donald said

"It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave [when he was asked the same question]. She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.”

Homosexual activists, who had been demanding that Miss California be stripped of her crown since her "honorable" and "honest" answer in the Miss USA competition, then began to demand that Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama also be relieved of his crown.

Perez Hilton, rumored to have experienced significant lightness in the loafers for many years, said of Obama (after somewhat insensitively referring to him as a 'dumb b***ch'):

"You want to know what? Yes I do expect [the President] to be politically correct. Do we want a [President] that's politically insensitive? That's politically offensive? No."

"[The President of the] USA should be all-inclusive," Hilton said. "[He] should be my [President of the] USA. And when [...]he answered the question in that way, it was instantly divisive and alienating to gays and lesbians and friends and supporters."

The reaction of Hilton and other homosexual activists to President Obama's intolerance and political incorrectness has relieved suspicions that the primary cause for the movement's hostility to Miss Carrie Prejean was her open confession of faith in God, and her implicit moral condemnation of their position. Thus, the homosexual activists who called for Prejean's removal as Miss California are shown to be people of consistency and principle rather than mere political opportunists and haters of all things moral and/or Christian.

DISCLAIMER: This blog entry is posted in its entirety for its ironic effect. Click the links and think about it.

Baracksheviks Have "Something": Jeb Says So!

Well now, she CERTAINLY has "something!"

The following appeared in the May 3, 2009 Washington Times:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 elections.

"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.

Jeb, bless his heart, is afflicted with Bushism, a malady more perverse and dangerous than even swine flu. To see Bushism in action, refer to the administrations of H.W. and W.

Bushism causes objects of great substance, when viewed in your rear-view mirror, to appear to be merely "nostalgic." It also leads one to believe that economic programs based on actual economic principles are related to voodoo, and causes one to equate the spending of money with compassion.

Jeb would like us to "steal the strategy" of the Baracksheviks? Pray tell, exactly what was this vaunted "strategy?" Running an empty suit that is addicted to a teleprompter? Refusing to engage the significant issues while doing one's best impression of some weird combination of Jon Bon Jovi and Snoop Dogg? Choosing a candidate based on his "hip/cool quotient?" Emblazoning the country with meaningless, single-word tripe designed to appeal to the most ignorant among us, a la the best Soviet agitprop of the 1970s?

Soviet... errrrr, Barackshevik propaganda at its.... errrrrr, finest!

Having this, the Baracksheviks have "something?"

Huh?

Perhaps they do have something, but my theory is that it can be cured with antibiotics.

Or reading.

Obama Budget Revealed: "Long Way To Go"

"Obviously, the bottom line is frightening," said Rudolph Penner, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "They have a long way to go to show fiscal restraint."




The Obama administration unveiled its FY 2010 budget today, a $3.4 trillion, 1500 page monstrosity.

He followed the release up with a statement that "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not a problem." Do tell!

John McCain, on Twitter, quickly criticized the budget's proposed cuts of $17 billion as being only 1/2% of the total budget.

The total budget works out to spending an amount equal to approximately $11,000 per person in America for the fiscal year.

Here's an idea. Take out all the money needed to maintain the military and its operations at home and abroad - estimated at about $700 billion - and simply give the American people what is left as a block grant. So figure that every American man, woman, and child gets 80% of $11,000, or $8,800, and the government gets a year-long vacation.

My prediction: With $8,800 returned to every PERSON in America, there would be no more economic meltdown.

My second prediction: Since Obama cares about expanding a Fascist regulatory regime, and not curing the economic problems of the country, it couldn't possibly be on the radar.

But it does make one think. If government simply getting out of the way would solve the economic woes of the nation, why, exactly, are we expanding the role of government right now?

Newsweek Nails It!: Obama is a Marxist!

Out of the mouth of babes and the mainstream media, every once in a while you get profundity.

My uncle reads Newsweek, I don't. So he saved the February 16, 2009 copy for me, and it had THIS on the cover:




Note the self-conscious mockery of actual socialist symbolism:






Now of course, if a Conservative makes this same observation, he is a "right-wing extremist." Everyone from Mike Savage to Sean Hannity to Joe the Plumber to John McCain have been criticized for utilizing the word in connection with The One.

And yes, the story on the inside, written by Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas, ties this "socialism" that "we all are" now to the policy of Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama. The story specifically states that Obama is going much further than even the free-spending Bush while "reversing Bill Clinton's end of big government" [sic]. And the article casts its own lot with Obama's spending-like-water goals, asserting (without proof) that "an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more taxing and spending."

Of course, the story is strangely silent about the fact that the retirement savings of the aging population was wiped out by Democratic social engineering in the housing market, that high energy costs will be caused by Socialist global warming nonsense, and that, well, that global warming is so much Socialist nonsense designed specifically not to respond to a real threat, but rather to put the brakes on the free market and transfer power to national governments and international non-governmental organizations. But all that is beside the point! The good news is, we're all Socialists with the advent of The One.

A moment of honesty (unintended, I am sure) was induldged in by our Newsweek heroes, when they note "The catch [of all this expanding Socialist governance] is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment)." Emphasis added.

The article concludes: "Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace." But look for that growth to stop, Komrade!

In an adjacent story by Michael Freedman (who seems to barely be able to restrain his orgasmic delight long enough to type his story), the claim is made that the long-term effects of Obama's policies "will be a steady drift toward what could be called a European model of governance, regulation, and paternalism. Already, big government is on the rise - projected public spending figures show the United States will move ever closer to European averages over the next two years." The U.S. government will begin regulating "with big brother vigilance," turning entire industries into "virtual wards of the state." Of course, restraint is not always a good thing, as we learn when Freedman indulges in some journalistic cheerleading, "This is all likely to prove very popular if the conventional wisdom [read: the hopes of the mainstream media elites] is right."

How is that whole hopey-changey thing working out for ya? Oddly enough, all these ideas have been tried before. But rather than being "tried and true," it seems they are "tried and tattered."

Celebrating May Day: Commies Love Obama!

When I awoke this morning, the air just seemed more... RED. I couldn't figure it out, but then I realized that it was May Day. Something like Christmas to the socialist, communist, and Obamazombie, May Day is a celebration of the international proletariat.

So in celebration, it seems fitting to revisit yet one of a thousand indications of the thoroughly socialist nature of Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama that have been completely ignored by the media. A January 31, 2009 speech by Sam Webb, somebody you have never heard of.

But maybe you should have heard of him. Because it seems to me that his endorsement of Barack Obama's agenda tells us at least as much about The One as does Barack's association with Reverend Wright.

Because Sam Webb is the leader of the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA). The speech comes from a People's Weekly World event in Cleveland. The People's Weekly World is the publication of the CPUSA.





While the speech is filled with generic commie palaver and the vagaries of someone who is compelled to say something meaningful but doesn't know what they are talking about (perhaps Mr. Webb needs to employ a teleprompter?), it is obvious that Webb is repressing the high-pitched squeel of a six-year old girl who has just gotten a pony for Christmas when he says things like, "an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream."

Hope and change, get it?

Webb rejoices that "larger Democratic majorities control Congress!" And yet conservatives are continually criticized for the close association that they find between the ideology of Dems and Commies when they design bumper stickers like this:




But there is obviously some sort of congruence between the values and agendas of Democrats and Communists when the Communists rejoice at Democratic control... nyet?

Webb, after a lot of blathering on about Reaganite neoliberalism, how capitalism (and capital itself - odd, given The One's pronouncement that "Now is not the time for profits!") fails to produce wealth, Webb gets into the "meat" [sic] of his speech when he makes the case for Obama's "New New Deal."





Of course tax cuts or making a hospitable environment for business is not the way to build the economy. Typical Communist doublethink - we do not build the economy by increasing economic activity; it is almost like Obama's spendiing orgy being characterized as "financial responsibility."

Rather, it is "thru massive injections of money from the federal government into the economy, into the hands of people who will spend it.... In this regard, the President's stimulus bill passed this week in the House and should be welcomed and supported."

Two observations, in the form of questions: 1) Whence cometh this money "from the federal government?" How munch money does the federal government earn in a year? 2) Isn't this precisely the hair of the dog that bit us? Wasn't it "massive injections of money [at the behest of] the federal government into the hands of people who will spend it" on a mortgage that they cannot afford that brought us to the utopian economy that we currently enjoy?

In order to ensure economic recovery, Webb stated that the Obama administration "will almost inevitably have to consider - and they already are [considering] - the following measures:

* Public ownership of the financial system....

* Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope....

* ... public takeover of the energy complex....

* Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into "no profit" zones.

* Rerouting investment capital... [into a] green economy and public infrastructure."


How, odd, that Sam Webb's goals, even his words, are so eerily echoed in the words of Obama and his administration. Can you hear the echoes? "Never waste a good crisis." "No profit zones." "Progressive." "Green economy." "Government takeover of the banking system."

Webb's conclusion? The Obama administration, for the CPUSA, represents a "once in a lifetime opportunity!"

But for who? For Communists? Really? Sam Webb, a person who has dedicated 40 years of his life to attempting to erect a socialist/communist economy in the United States, sees the Obama administration as a "lifetime opportunity"? Does anyone see this as... odd?

Webb finally states, "But I think we can confidently say that change is coming.... Yes We Can!"

I'm sure he is merely being ironic with that last little bit of sloganeering.

So to all the Obamazombies, Commies, and all their fellow travelers, Happy May Day! Enjoy your once in a lifetime opportunity!