Britain and Europe Demand that Bankers Pay for the Depression They Have Created

Tagged with: bankergate Obama-Summers-Geithner gang tobin tax wall street sales tax

Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net

The Tobin tax or Wall Street sales tax is rapidly gathering momentum worldwide, thanks above all to a bid by British Labour Party MPs to save themselves from all but certain defeat at the hands of the Tories by playing this great economic populist card, which they have dubbed the Robin Hood Tax.

If the Labour Party left succeeds with this gambit, it will tend to transform the situation in the US as well, with desperate House and Senate Democrats following the Labour Party example and embracing the Tobin tax or Wall Street sales tax as a means of getting some populist credibility and viability for November. The Republicans, by contrast, will be forced to line up in defense of their Wall Street backers, stripping away all their demagogic Tea Party camouflage.

The Obama-Summers-Geithner gang will also be put into a bind: will they oppose a measure demanded by their own Congressional Democrats? I have been campaigning for the Tobin tax for a number of years, and it is an idea whose time has now come.

If a sales tax on financial transactions (Tobin tax, trading tax, securities transfer tax, Robin Hood tax) can bring New Labour back from the dead, it can also defeat Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, Wall Street, and the reactionary Republicans here in the US, while forcing Obama to go along.

It is time to make this a world-wide campaign to force the bankers to pay for the world economic depression they have created.

For weeks, British public opinion polls have been unanimous in finding that Gordon Brown and the Labour Party were doomed to succumb before the triumphal march of the reactionary Tories of David Cameron. But in the past month or two, the situation has begun to change, with at least one poll showing the Tories only ahead by a couple of percentage points, meaning that a Conservative Party victory is now in doubt, and a hung parliament with no clear majority for anyone a real possibility. E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post is trying to portray Gordon Brown as a new version of “Giv’em Hell” Harry Truman.

But we should remember that Gordon Brown is the politician who inaugurated the financial bailout fad on a world scale in 2007 when he pumped British taxpayer money into the bankrupt hulk of Northern Rock, followed by the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Bank, and the rest of the bankrupt City of London. So far, Gordon Brown has only flirted with the Robin Hood tax from a distance.

So it is not likely that the turnaround has anything to do with Gordon Brown, although widespread fear of draconian cuts in the social safety net under the Tories is playing a major role.

Hawaii considering law to ignore Obama ‘birthers’

By MARK NIESSE
My Way News

HONOLULU (AP) – Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.

As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama’s birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won’t give up.

“Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy,” said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health’s Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.

So-called “birthers” claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn’t meet a constitutional requirement for being president.

Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she’s seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama’s birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday.

A few of these requesters continue to pepper the Health Department with the same letters seeking the same information, even after they’re told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest. Responding wastes time and money, Kim said.

more

Related Articles:

• March on Washington to tell president to quit
• The Unhealthy Addictions of Barack Obama
• Clever Legislators in Arizona Hit on New Way to Find Obama’s Birth Truth
• Americans Reject Health Bill- Soetoro Ignores, Asserts Dictatorship
• Obama Fighting Against Release of Identity of Telecom Lobbyists

Court rules Tea Party can proceed with effort to recall Sen. Robert Menendez

By Peggy Ackermann/Statehouse Bureau

March 16, 2010, 4:20PM

Jerry McCrea/The Star-LedgerU.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) at a press conference at Newark Liberty Airport in this November 2009 photo.
A state appeals court today ruled New Jersey’s secretary of state must accept a petition a citizens group filed to recall U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, but left open the question of whether the removal effort itself is constitutional.

The three-judge panel stayed its ruling to give Menendez (D-N.J.) the opportunity to appeal to the state Supreme Court.. The senator has 45 days to file an appeal but did not say today whether he would. He called the recall effort a “political stunt” that won’t distract him from doing his job.

“This an organization trying to undemocratically and unconstitutionally overturn an election in which more than 2 million New Jerseyans voted,” said Menendez, whose term expires in 2012. “My focus continues to be on job creation legislation and delivering a successful extension of my local property tax relief bill.”

• Tea Party group seeking to recall Sen. Robert Menendez appears before N.J. appeals court

The court found existing New Jersey law and the state’s constitution both allow U.S. senators to be recalled. For that reason, the appeals court said, the removal effort can proceed. But noting the absence of case law and precedent, it left the ultimate question of the constitutionality of the state’s recall law and amendment to a higher court.”There are a host of genuine arguments and counterarguments that can be articulated and debated about whether or not the Federal Constitution would permit a United States Senator to be recalled by the voters under state law,” the appellate judges said.

“I’m pleased,” said Dan Silberstein, attorney for the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement. “I think the appellate court made the right decision on where the case is procedurally.”

Menendez’s attorney disagreed.

“The U.S. Constitution is clear that a senator’s term is six years and is not subject to recall,” said Marc E. Elias. “The state attorney general correctly argued before the court that a recall is unconstitutional and a clear disservice to voters who take part in a petition process that is invalid. We are pleased the court stayed this opinion until the appeals process is completed.”

The state is reviewing the ruling and has not decided whether it will appeal, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office said.

The case began last fall after then-Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells rejected the committee’s recall notice, the filing of which is necessary before petitions can be circulated. Wells said the U.S. Constitution supersedes the state’s.

After a notice is approved, a committee must get the signatures of 25 percent of registered voters of the affected district — 1.3 million in the case of Menendez — before a recall election can be held.

NJ Tea Parties United and the Sussex County Tea Party say they want Menendez removed because he votes for too much government spending.

The case put the state in the unusual position of arguing earlier this month against its own law and calling part of its constitution unconstitutional.

Silberstein, however, told the judges the case is about whether the secretary of state will allow “core political speech.” He said state voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1993 allowing them to recall public officials — including U.S. senators. The Legislature enacted the amendment in 1995.

Democratic state chairman John Wisniewski, who is also an assemblyman from Middlesex County, criticized the Tea Party group’s actions.

“Attacking the constitutionality of the Constitution is a strange, hypocritical effort, which contradicts the system of elections that most Americans have taken pride in for more than 200 years,” Wisniewski said.

Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R-Sussex) disagreed.

“Our state constitution is clear: The voters of this state overwhelmingly decided to extend their rights to recall any elected official who is elected and serving the people of this state on all levels of government,” she said.

© 2010 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

States’ rights is cry of resistance for lawmakers

Conservative anxiety fueling some states to assert local authority

	South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds discusses state spending during a press conference in Pierre, SD. The Republican governor signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota.  View related photos
Chet Brokaw / AP

By Kirk Johnson

updated 5:16 a.m. ET March 17, 2010

Whether it’s a correctly called a movement, a backlash or political theater, state declarations of their rights  or in some cases denunciations of federal authority, amounting to the same thing are on a roll.

Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota.

On Thursday, Wyoming’s governor, Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, signed a similar bill for that state. The same day, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul.

In Utah, lawmakers embraced states rights with a vengeance in the final days of the legislative session last week. One measure said Congress and the federal government could not carry out health care reform, not in Utah anyway, without approval of the Legislature. Another bill declared state authority to take federal lands under the eminent domain process. A resolution asserted the inviolable sovereignty of the State of Utah under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Some legal scholars say the new states rights drive has more smoke than fire, but for lawmakers, just taking a stand can be important enough.

Who is the sovereign, the state or the federal government?†said State Representative Chris N. Herrod, a Republican from Provo, Utah, and leader of the 30-member Patrick Henry Caucus, which formed last year and led the assault on federal legal barricades in the session that ended Thursday.

Local power supreme
Alabama, Tennessee and Washington are considering bills or constitutional amendments that would assert local police powers to be supreme over the federal authority, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, a research and advocacy group based in Los Angeles. And Utah, again not to be outdone, passed a bill last week that says federal law enforcement authority, even on federal lands, can be limited by the state.

There’s a tsunami of interest in states’ rights and resistance to an overbearing federal government; that’s what all these measures indicate, said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, which led the drive last year for one of the first firearms freedoms, laws like the ones signed last week in South Dakota and Wyoming.

In most cases, conservative anxiety over federal authority is fueling the impulse, with the Tea Party movement or its members in the backdrop or forefront. Mr. Herrod in Utah said that he had spoken at Tea Party rallies, for example, but that his efforts, and those of the Patrick Henry Caucus, were not directly connected to the Tea Partiers.

And in some cases, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, the politics of states’ rights are veering left. Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, for example — none of them known as conservative bastions are considering bills that would authorize, or require, governors to recall or take control of National Guard troops, asserting that federal calls to active duty have exceeded federal authority.

Everything we’ve tried to keep the federal government confined to rational limits has been a failure, an utter, unrelenting failure — so why not try something else? said Thomas E. Woods Jr., a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a nonprofit group in Auburn, Ala., that researches what it calls “the scholarship of liberty.

Mr. Woods, who has a Ph.D. in history, and has written widely on states’ rights and nullification — the argument that says states can sometimes trump or disregard federal law — said he was not sure where the dots between states’ rights and politics connected. But he and others say that whatever it is, something politically powerful is brewing under the statehouse domes.

Other scholars say the state efforts, if pursued in the courts, would face formidable roadblocks. Article 6 of the Constitution says federal authority outranks state authority, and on that bedrock of federalist principle rests centuries of back and forth that states have mostly lost, notably the desegregation of schools in the 1950s and ’60s.

“Article 6 says that that federal law is supreme and that if there’s a conflict, federal law prevails,” said Prof. Ruthann Robson, who teaches constitutional law at the City University of New York School of Law. “It’s pretty difficult to imagine a way in which a state could prevail on many of these.”

Misinterpreting the Constitution
And while some efforts do seem headed for a direct conflict with federal laws or the Constitution, others are premised on the idea that federal courts have misinterpreted the Constitution in the federal government’s favor.

A lawsuit filed last year by the Montana Shooting Sports Association after the state’s “firearms freedom” law took effect, for example, does not say that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, but that courts have misconstrued interstate commerce regulations.

National monuments and medical marijuana, of all things, play a role as well.

Mr. Herrod in Utah said that after an internal memorandum from the United States Department of the Interior was made public last month, discussing sites around the country potentially suitable for federal protection as national monuments — including two sites in Utah — support for all kinds of statements against federal authority gained steam.

And at the Tenth Amendment Center , the group’s founder, Michael Boldin, said he thought states that had bucked federal authority over the last decade by legalizing medical marijuana, even as federal law held all marijuana use and possession to be illegal, had set the template in some ways for the effort now. And those states, Mr. Boldin said, were essentially validated in their efforts last fall when the Justice Department said it would no longer make medical marijuana a priority in the states were it was legal. Nullification, he said, was shown to work.

Whether the political impulse of states’ rights and nullification will become a direct political fault line in the national elections this fall is uncertain, said Mr. Woods of the von Mises institute.

But in Utah, at least, a key indicator is coming much sooner. The party caucuses to determine, among other things, whether candidates will face primary elections, are to be held next Tuesday, and Mr. Herrod said the states rights’ crowd would attend and push for change.

“Those politicians who don’t understand that things are different are in big trouble because a few people showing up to caucus can have a big influence,” Mr. Herrod said.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican — who signed a firearms law like South Dakota’s last month declaring exemption from federal regulation for guns made and used within the state — said Mr. Herbert was still studying the new batch of bills passed this week and had not yet made decisions about signing them.

This story, ‘States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry of Resistance for Lawmakers,’ originally appeared in The New York Times.

Copyright © 2010 The New York Times

We The People

50 Governments Within a Government – Freedom’s Safety Valve

By Ron Ewart  Wednesday, March 17, 2010

10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

You “gotta” love the framers of this great nation.  Using 5,000 years of civilized history and knowing how rulers of men can morph into tyrants so easily, they crafted a blueprint for freedom that so far has stood longer than most countries who colored the pages of history with liberty.

The Roman attempts at civilized rule went from the Roman Kingdom, to the Roman Republic, to finally the Roman Empire and then collapse.  Its history was well documented and was a prime example of the evolution of a culture that could not withstand the ravages of human temptation, greed, avarice, arrogance, lust, insanity and the all consuming desire for absolute power.

Our Founding Fathers, flawed though they might have been, had many historical examples of civilizations that experimented with individual liberty and “certain, natural, unalienable rights”, that were determined to be a gift from God, not from men.  As they labored over the U. S. Constitution using the 13 colonies’ Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence as their core principles, they set about to draft a document that would put specific enumerated limits and separation of powers on those holding federal power and granted all other rights to the states and the people.  Never in all of the civilized history of man, had such a document ever been written with these multiple safeguards against government tyranny.

Still, even with all these safeguards, central control and power began to manifest itself by men who refused to honor their solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help them God.  The bonds of the Constitution began to unravel, even as far back as the middle 18 hundreds, as these dishonorable men took it upon themselves to “alter” that sacred document of freedom, and alter it they did in so many devious ways.  But the major damage occurred in the 20th Century under the corrupt Presidents of Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Johnson, Carter and continuing in the 21st Century under Obama.  Obama is on the way of taking the constitution apart altogether.

With what is happening in America today, as we get closer and closer to an Absolute Democrat Monarchy and one-party rule, many might think that all is lost and there is no hope of recovery from this overt and covert assault on freedom by those who have succumbed to human “temptation, greed, avarice, arrogance, lust, insanity and the all consuming desire for absolute power.”  Not so, we say.

Remember the 10th Amendment? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

America is a country of 50 governments within one government and the 50 governments have 10th Amendment power, under the Constitution.  That 10th Amendment power is much more powerful than limited Federal Power, because the 50 governments can tell the one Federal Government to go to Hell, by evoking 10th Amendment powers.  Many are already doing so.  Several states have evoked 10th Amendment powers to preserve the 2nd Amendment within their respective states.  Some are saying that the people in their states are not subject to ObamaCare, if it passes.  This is happening in spite of the fact that many state capitols have become just as liberal, progressive and left leaning, as has Washington DC.

Even if the states do not have the will to override federal power, there is always the last line of defense, the American people themselves, those who still believe in individual liberty and freedom and are willing to defend them.  It may come to that, but this author is confident that the resistance at the state level will rise in opposition to over-reaching federal power and will, in the end, tell the out-of-control, arrogant and narcissistic inmates in Washington DC, in no uncertain terms, that the states and the American people are in control of the asylum, not the inmates in Washington DC, who are devoid of honor.

In no way are we saying that freedom-loving Americans can sit back and rest on the states doing their duty under the 10th Amendment.  We must put over-whelming pressure on the state capitols to “nudge” them in the right direction and if “nudging” doesn’t work, we shall then be forced to “push” them in the right direction.

But the people have 10th Amendment power as well.  So the alternative may be, we will be forced to do it ourselves without the states.  We may be faced with having to maintain our freedom and liberty with pitch forks and possibly even guns.  However, if we the people let it come to that, when there are peaceful alternatives, we are the ones who are negligent in our duty to preserve freedom, not the states or the Federal Government and we shall deserve the consequences of that negligence.

Health-care ‘trickery’ called overthrow of Constitution

‘This makes Watergate look like Romper Room’

---

Posted: March 17, 2010
8:55 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is accused of using legislative trickery to push through health-care reform.

America’s system of government

based on the U.S. Constitution is being overthrown through illegal legislative “trickery” Congress is using to pass controversial health-care reform.

That’s the conclusion of some on the political right who are calling for the impeachment of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi along with the defeat of the health legislation.

“This is the overthrow of the U.S. constitutional system, orchestrated from the White House through the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid,” said radio host Rush Limbaugh today. “This is beyond rational explanation and description. This makes Watergate look like Romper Room.”

At issue is the possibility that reforms pushed by President Obama and other Democrats will be approved without ever actually having a direct vote, but could be “deemed” to have been passed, then signed into law by Obama. The process is called the “Slaughter Strategy,” named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee.

The clowns in Washington obviously have no clue about our founding document. Send them copies of the Constitution today!

Discussing the need for this procedure, Pelosi said: “I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.”

Indeed, Democrats could actually vote for the rule, yet still claim they’re against the Senate bill.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., agrees with Limbaugh that the “deem and pass” method is ludicrous and worthy of impeachment.

“The other thing is treason media,” Bachmann told radio host Sean Hannity. “Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story, that the speaker of the House would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on? That should laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this. That’s how bad this is. I mean, trust me. Dennis Hastert could have never gotten away with this. President Bush never could have gotten away with it.”

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, “In our lifetime, this is the most undemocratic, un-American step that we’ll have ever seen our Congress take. It’s appalling. It takes my breath away that they would think that this is OK to do. But again, we can’t feign surprise. Remember this is what Barack Obama had promised in the campaign. He said as a candidate that he was just days away from beginning the transformation of America.”

In a commentary posted at Carolina Journal, John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation, said he’s simply not going to comply with the legislation if it’s not properly voted on:

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not planning to recognize such a result as legally binding. I’m not going to pretend to obey any dictates from federal health-care bureaucrats that have never been authorized by a constitutional vote of both houses of Congress. I will not submit to any extra-constitutional order to dismantle the consumer-driven health plan I have set up for my employees.I will not comply. If the government tries to make me comply, I’ll sue. And I’ll win.

This is not (yet) a banana republic where constitutions are seen as inconvenient impediments to the rule of the despot. This is not (yet) a European-style welfare state where some powerful parliament can exercise legislative, executive, and judicial power all in one stroke.

Limbaugh expounded on the “deem and pass” procedure the House is considering, saying, “The word ‘deemed’ means what? It means pretend!”

“Maybe we can just deem our tax returns to have been filed. But we don’t actually file ’em. We just deem our taxes to have been paid. We just deem it! I mean, if they can deem to have passed laws, we can certainly say that we are ‘deemed’ to have complied with them.”

The Wall Street Journal noted the “deeming” procedure is unprecedented, since Congress has never before passed a comprehensive reform bill using the method.

According to the Constitution itself, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.”

In an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News today, President Obama indicated he did not have a problem with the “deem and pass” method, and said, “By the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what’s in it, you’ll know what’s in it because it’s going to be posted and everybody is going to be able to evaluate it on the merits.”

Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris told Fox anchor Bill O’Reilly the Slaughter tactic is “a ruse that is gonna fall apart of its own weight. People are massing against it as they see how phony it is.”

He said it was based on the “ridiculous assumption” the public won’t know a vote for the rule is actually a vote for the health-care bill.

O’Reilly agreed, noting, “This sneaky ‘deem’ deal isn’t going to happen because the folks will not tolerate it.”

The controversy is inciting plenty of comments on Internet messageboards, including:

• “The enactment of Obamacare by a budgetary ‘reconciliation’ process in the Senate and by the ‘Slaughter’ process in the House makes the U.S. Congress a parliament of whores. I blame the San Francisco Democrats headed by Pelosi and Reid as well as Obama, who hails from the bowels of the Chicago political machine as the culprits responsible for tearing apart the U.S. Constitution in order for them to put into place their socialist, borderline fascist agenda. For the first time, I fear for my country.”

• “Appears constitutional to me. Now that Democrats are in the majority, [Republicans] seem to respond in a negative way to every proposal recommended. Health-care reform is needed in this country now. … Stop griping.”

• “If this unconstitutional move gets pushed through, there needs to be an organized effort to impeach both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama for not standing by their swearing in pledge to ‘uphold the Constitution of the United States.’ We must hold Congress and those that represent the people accountable for their actions, and the action needs to be immediate!”

• “It appears we are headed full-circle back to taxation without representation. Does anyone remember how that turned out the first time?”

Guess Who’s Coming to Your House!

By Ken Blackwell

It’s all supposed to be voluntary, those “home visits” that are tucked into the mammoth Obamacare bill. If you have a strong stomach, and a stronger bottom, you can find home visitation on pages 568-595. That’s Section 2951 of H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that Harry Reid brought down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

All voluntary, they say, but once you “volunteer” to have the oh-so-helpful folks from Social Services come in to help with your newborns, or with a number of other specified issues, will you ever be able to get rid of them?

The bill provides for federal funding and supervision for this vast expansion of government intrusion into family life. This is the Nanny State on steroids.

Is your family being “targeted” for such home visitations? Let’s see if you fit into one of these very broad categories:

• Families where Mom is not yet 21. (No mention here whether she is married or not.)
• Families where someone is a tobacco user. (Does this include the White House? Watch out, Sasha and Malia! Does Grandpa, whom you love and have taken in, enjoy his after-dinner pipe?)
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

As if that list were not wide-ranging enough, here’s the net that can encompass tens of millions:

• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. [Emphasis added.]

So while Johnny gets his gun, the government steps in to “help” his family at home. Ronald Reagan used to say the most frightening words in the English language were these: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.

Who will sit atop the federal pyramid that runs this vast new invasion of family privacy? Why, it will be Sec. of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, of course. She was the most pro-abortion governor in American history when President Obama tapped her for his cabinet.

Do you spank your children? You should know that HHS bureaucrats think you are an abuser.

Do you support the Second Amendment? How would you like HHS bureaucrats asking your children if you maintain firearms in the home for family protection?

Do you home-school your kids? Take care. Members of Congress who have tried to abolish home-schooling are big backers of this health care bill. Do you wonder why?

There are abundant reasons to oppose this health care bill. Conservative leader Gary Bauer cites the colorful words of Oklahoma Democratic Congressman Dan Boren. Mr. Boren is one of the bluest of Blue Dogs. He says: “They can break my arms. They can do whatever they want to. They’ll never get my vote — ever. They’ll have to walk across my dead body if they want my vote on this issue.” Boren spoke for many concerned Democrats when he said, “there is no chance I am voting for this bill because it raises taxes on businesses, creates job-killing mandates, grows the size of government, and cuts services to seniors.”

All of this is true. But the White House is pulling out all the stops. One of their senior advisers told CNN’s Gloria Borger what President Obama’s people are telling wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill:

BORGER: Right. This isn’t going to be subtle at all today. I think this is it. I was speaking with one senior White House adviser just before I came on the air, and he said, think of it this way. This is the last helicopter out of Saigon, OK?

Could anything be more bizarre? A senior member of the administration is comparing the president’s signature measure in Congress to the forced evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in South Vietnam in 1975.

Older Americans remember the shame and heartbreak of seeing thousands of America’s allies desperately clinging to U.S. Army helicopters as the North Vietnamese army closed in on South Vietnam’s capital city.

We don’t want to re-fight the Vietnam War, but it should not go without notice that the Democrats also controlled Capitol Hill back in 1975. The Democrats, led by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Minnesota Congressman Don Fraser, had cut off all the promised U.S. funding for the South Vietnamese armed forces that were trying to stave off a brutal Communist takeover of their country. And we’re told that we have to pass Obamacare as a tribute to Ted!

Is this the kind of hope and change Mr. Obama’s top advisers now want us to embrace? Are his own people thinking of this last-minute push as a debacle? Helicopters in Saigon. What a confused and confusing mess this is!

One thing is clear: For life and liberty, we must defeat ObamaCare. Call your U.S. senators and representatives now (202.224.3121). Tell them to vote NO on Obamacare.

http://repubx.com/

Thug-Tactics Deployed by Soros on Behalf of Nazi Healthcare Bill

March 17, 2010 (LPAC)—Soros’s puppet, union ‘crat Andy Stern, has threatened to run primary opponents against any Democrat voting “no,” and Soros’s grassroots front-group MoveOn says it has pledges of $8 million to fund these candidates, no doubt largely from Soros and friends. Lyndon LaRouche says that Soros is clearly returning to the chores he and his father performed in Budapest during the war, when they sold their fellow Jews into the Nazi ovens.

http://larouchepac.com/node/13904