Conservatives Monitoring The Liberal Left
Posts tagged Un American
Conservative Society For Action protests Attorney General Eric Holder During a Visit in Long Island, New York
Dec 13th
DO you want the terrorists to have their trial in New York ? CSA says no. America says no. Obama and Holder says yes. Conservative Society For Action was out protesting Attorney General Eric Holder during a visit to a local church in Rosevelt Long Island on Sunday Dec 13. Here’ s a link to the video:
Obama song video prompts protests at NJ school
Oct 12th
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
Associated Press Writer
BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) – Protesters brought some different songs Monday to an elementary school where students sang in praise of President Barack Obama, bringing criticism from conservative commentators who said children were being indoctrinated.
About 70 protesters stood on a sidewalk across the street from the B. Bernice Young School waving flags and homemade placards, singing “God Bless America” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” and chanting slogans such as “No indoctrination” and “Free children, free minds.”
A smaller group of counter-protesters watched and occasionally heckled them.
The school is in a diverse suburb 15 miles northeast of Philadelphia and landed in an uncomfortable national spotlight last month when the video, shot last school year during an author’s visit, surfaced. In it, second-graders sang a medley that began, “Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama/He said that all must lend a hand/To make this country strong again.”
Some critics of the president say the song was overtly political and follows a pattern of Obama being viewed as an idol rather than a politician.
Monday’s 90-minute protest, held while the school was in session and attended largely by members of anti-tax organizations from around the state, was an outgrowth of that sentiment.
“We should continue protests like this to prevent this from happening again,” said Robert Gordan, 66, a retiree from Middletown.
Karen Flowers, a 43-year-old state government social worker, was there to protest the protesters.
“I don’t have any problem with the first African-American president, the children singing about it,” Flowers said. “They’re making a lot out of nothing.”
Jim and Gina Pronchick, who were among the few protesters who have children in the school, said they were upset that their son was in the video without their permission—and that school officials hadn’t fully explained the context of the song.
The song was performed in February during an assembly that celebrated a number of occasions, from Black History Month to Dental Health Month, the township Board of Education said in a statement Monday. The lyrics were sent home to parents in advance, the board said.
The video was made a month later when Charisse Carney-Nunes, who wrote the children’s book “I Am Barack Obama,” visited the school and children sang the song again, school officials said.
“There was no intention to make any political statement or promote a political agenda at all,” Superintendent Christopher Manno said in the statement.
The teacher who oversaw the class has retired.
Sunstein: Americans too racist for socialism
Oct 8th
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – The U.S. should move in the direction of socialism but the country’s “white majority” opposes welfare since such programs largely would benefit minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
“The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics),” wrote Sunstein.
The Obama czar’s controversial comments were made in his 2004 book “The Second Bill of Rights,” which was obtained and reviewed by WND.
In the book, Sunstein openly argues for bringing socialism to the U.S. and even lends support to communism.
“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.”
Continued Sunstein: “I think this debate was unhelpful; it is most plausible to see the two sets of rights as mutually reinforcing, not antagonistic.”
Get Glenn Beck’s ‘Common Sense’ … The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine
Sunstein claims the “socialist movement” did not take hold in the U.S. in part because of a “smaller and weaker political left or lack of enthusiasm for redistributive programs.”
He laments, “In a variety of ways, subtle and less subtle, public and private actions have made it most difficult for socialism to have any traction in the United States.”
Sunstein wants to spread America’s wealth
WND first reported Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay “justice” to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is “desirable” to redistribute America’s wealth to poorer nations.
A prominent theme throughout Sunstein’s 39-page paper, entitled “Climate Change Justice” and reviewed by WND, maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as “distributive justice” several times. The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner.
“It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid,” wrote Sunstein.
He posited: “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.
“If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives,” he wrote.
Sunstein maintains: “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”
Sunstein proposed ‘socialist’ bill of rights
In “The Second Bill of Rights,” WND also reported, Sunstein proposed a new “bill of rights” in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state. Among his mandates:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is “not seriously arguing” his bill of rights be “encompassed by anything in the Constitution,” but on the next page he states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself.”
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.”
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled “The Constitution in 2020,” which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a “progressive” consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he “will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party.”
Source: WND.com
Liberals seek health-care access for illegal aliens
Sep 28th
By Stephen Dinan
Fearful that they’re losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access.
The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party’s spines on the contentious issue, say it’s unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they’ve been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.
“Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room,” said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Mr. Honda was joined by more than 20 of his colleagues in two letters laying out the demands.
Coverage for immigrants is one of the thorniest issues in the health care debate, and one many Democratic leaders would like to avoid. But immigrant rights groups and the Democrats who sent the letters say they have to take a stand now.
President Obama has said he does not want health care proposals to cover illegal immigrants. The bill drawn up by Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, excludes illegal immigrants from his proposed health care exchange.
Mr. Honda and his allies, though, say illegal immigrants should be allowed to pay for insurance if they can afford it, even if it comes through a government-established exchange. As a generally young, healthy part of the population, illegal immigrants could help reduce overall costs for those who buy into health exchange plans, the lawmakers said.
The Democrats’ letters, however, do not issue ultimatums or threaten to withhold support for the bills if their requests aren’t met.
The National Council of La Raza launched its own “flood their voice mail” campaign last week to put pressure on Mr. Baucus to expand coverage in his proposal to include all legal immigrants and to drop verification language in the legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining coverage.
Mr. Honda told The Washington Times that he’s not pushing for illegal immigrants to gain access to taxpayer-subsidized benefits. “That’s an argument that’s been done already,” he said.
Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, said proposals that include government coverage for illegal immigrants leave him incredulous.
“If anybody can, with a straight face, advocate that we should provide health insurance for people who broke into our country, broke our law and for the most part are criminals, I don’t know where they ever would draw the line,” he said.
Mr. King, who opposes Democrats’ health care plans in general, said illegal immigrant access in legislation “would be a poison pill that would cause health care to go down” to defeat.
Twenty-nine Democrats signed on to the letter on legal immigrants, while 21 signed the letter on covering illegal immigrants. Although the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus signed the legal-immigrant letter in their capacity as CBC officials, they signed the other letter as individual members of Congress.
Under the 1996 welfare law overhaul, Congress restricted most federal benefits to longtime holders of green cards – those who have been in the country at least five years.
But Democrats chipped away at that rule when they reauthorized the State Children’s Health Insurance Program earlier this year and allowed states to cover all immigrant children and pregnant women, regardless of how long they’ve been in the country.
In their letter, the Democrats said health care costs are much lower for legal immigrants than for native citizens.
“Immigrants are part of our families, our communities, our economy, and contribute to the fabric of America,” they wrote. “It is simply wrong that their taxes would pay for public health insurance programs to which they are not allowed access.”
Source: The Washington Times
Congressman wants all ‘czars’ to testify
Sep 10th
By Jordan Fabian – 09/09/09 10:11 AM ET
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Wednesday called for President Obama’s “czars,” or appointed high-level advisers, to testify before Congress about their “authority and responsibilities” in the executive branch.
The president’s “czars” have become a point of controversy among his opponents because they do not have to be confirmed by the Senate as cabinet-level officials do.
McHenry wrote to committee chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asking the appointed officials to testify.
“If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process,” McHenry, who is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in his letter.
Czars were in the spotlight again after “green jobs” czar Van Jones’ resigned this weekend. It was revealed that Jones made harsh comments about Republicans and signed a “truther” petition alleging that the government played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
“His ability to slip into a position of power without due Congressional diligence only further underscores the necessity for a confirmation process,” the third-term Republican said of Jones.
However, the actual number of czars in the administration is a disputed matter. McHenry requests that all of President Obama’s 44 czars testify before Congress. But other reports put the number at around 30.
The North Carolina Republican did not provide a list of the 44 czars he wants to testify.
SOURCE: THE HILL.COM
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll (9/7/09)
Sep 7th


Monday, September 07, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends). Sixty percent (60%) now believe the President is at least as ethical as most politicians.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.
One of the fun things about being in the polling business is that people often like to blame the messenger when they don’t like the news. One of the more creative efforts to diss the messenger was made on NBC’s Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Fallon, The Roots and special guest Sean “Diddy” Combs complained about the Presidential Approval Index as they “slow jammed” the news.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had three analysis columns published in the Wall Street Journal. The most recent was on health care. Earlier columns were on the President’s approval ratings and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
Check out our weekly review of key polls to see “What They Told Us.” Topics include voter frustration with incumbents, health care reform, deficits, Afghanistan, and more. Also, visit our home page for the latest polling on a variety of topics. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased that our data was the least volatile of all the tracking polls. Our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead with more than 50% of the vote every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.7% Democrats, 32.7% Republicans, and 29.6% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Read More: Rasmussen
