“Manufactured Protests” Myth Starts To Crack

Paul Joseph Watson

http://www.infowars.com/manufactured-protests-myth-starts-to-crack/

Prison Planet.com
Monday, August 10, 2009

The media created myth that the town hall protests raging across the country are artificially manufactured is starting to crack, as the public takes the press to task for parroting the erroneous talking point that the demonstrations are the work of lobbyists and Republican organizations, and that they are fostered by underlying racism.

A caller to C-Span’s Washington Journal show perfectly clarified the issues we have been highlighting all along, that the protesters are not just Republican “right-wingers,” they aren’t being prodded into action by lobbyists, and the anger is not just directed against Obamacare, but against the entire agenda, and especially against Congress passing legislation thousands of pages long without even reading it.

As we highlighted last week, ABC News reported that there was no evidence of lobbyists at the protests. Shortly after this, Obamanoids simply switched their talking point and started to claim that the demonstrations were all being organized by Republican organizations.

The C-Span caller who labeled herself an Independent stated that she only started going to protests as recently as July 4th and before that she wasn’t even political.

The caller points out that the protests are growing because, “All these massive bills, thousands of pages long that are passed with almost no debate, no time for us to see what’s in it,” and in complete contrast to promised of transparency on behalf of the new administration.

“When I watch the news people stand here and tell me that I am a member of a hired mob and that I’ve been called up by the Republican party….I’ve never been contacted by any organized group – this is an organic movement – when people stand there and lie to me about what I know is going on how can I trust them when they tell me it’s gonna save money?” she said, adding, “Yes people are getting angry, that doesn’t mean it’s fake, that means it’s real.”

The caller then took on attempts to discredit the protests by labeling them racist by pointing out that the only person to have been physically attacked during the demonstrations was a black man who was protesting against Obama. As we reported on Friday, pro-Obamacare supporters assaulted Kenneth Gladney, who was handing out Gadsen flags outside an event in in Mehville, Missouri that opponents of the health care bill were barred from entering.

Despite efforts to depict the protesters as extremist thugs and even Nazis, the real brownshirt tactics are being put into action by White House front groups such as HCAN, ACORN, MoveOn.org (a George Soros outfit), the National Council of La Raza, the eugenics front Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Clintonite John Podesta’s war-mongering Center for American Progress, who have organized “marshals” whose job it will be to police protesters and stifle their freedom of speech.

In addition, the government has called on people to inform on those critical of Obamacare via an online snitch form at the White House.gov website, creating an enemies list and enabling the Obama administration to pursue its political adversaries.

Watch the C-Span clip below.

Ask the Science Csar.

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,”

- John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Obama is not familiar with the House healthcare bill

http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/

Shouldn't our President be at least familiar with the bills he is trying to getsigned into law. maybe its just me.

Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

By: Eamon Javers July 20, 2009 02:10 PM EST

A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year. If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history. For the government to be on the hook for the total amount, worst-case scenarios would have to come to pass in a variety of federal programs, which is unlikely, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s financial bailout programs, in testimony prepared for delivery to the House oversight committee Tuesday. The Treasury Department says less than $2 trillion has been spent so far. Still, the enormity of the IG’s projection underscores the size of the economic disaster that hit the nation over the past year and the unprecedented sums mobilized by the federal government under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to confront it. In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service. Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn’t come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. The annual gross domestic product of the United States is just over $14 trillion. Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams downplayed the total amount could ever reach Barofsky’s number. “The $23.7 trillion estimate generally includes programs at the hypothetical maximum size envisioned when they were established,” Williams said. “It was never likely that all these programs would be ‘maxed out’ at the same time.” Still, the eye-popping price tag provoked an immediate reaction on Capitol Hill. “The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn’t even imaginable,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. “If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn’t even come close to just one trillion dollars – $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure.” Congressional Democrats say they will call for Treasury to meet transparency requirements suggested by the inspector general, said a spokeswoman for the Oversight committee. “The American people need to know what’s going on with their money,” said committee spokeswoman Jenny Rosenberg. In his prepared remarks, Barofsky writes: “Since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007, the Federal Government, through many agencies, has implemented dozens of programs that are broadly designed to support the economy and financial system. The total potential Federal Government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion.” The comment comes in the context of a quarterly report to Congress by the special inspector general. Barofsky will testify Tuesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The office of the special inspector general was created to serve as an auditor of the federal bailout by the same legislation that launched the TARP program itself. Originally, TARP was intended, Barofsky writes, to facilitate “the purchase, management, and sale of up to $700 billion of “toxic” assets, primarily troubled mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.” But that plan was soon rejected, and the TARP instead became a grab bag of bailout initiatives, including bailouts for GM, Chrysler and auto parts suppliers as the federal government struggled in real time to contain a spiraling economic disaster. Barofsky reports that TARP has come to include 12 separate programs that include a total of as much as $3 trillion, “including TARP funds, loans and guarantees from other agencies, and private money.” Of the initial $700 billion allocated by Congress, Barofsky found that the Treasury has so far announced how $643.1 billion will be spent, and it has actually spent $441 billion as of June 30. Barofsky’s calculation of a $23 trillion figure took into account a wide-ranging group of federal programs set up by disparate agencies within the federal bureaucracy. The special inspector general counted approximately 50 initiatives or programs launched since 2007 to fight the economic collapse. The Federal Reserve, he found, has increased its balance sheet from $900 billion to more than $2 trillion, and Barofsky estimated that the total amount of support to the economy by the fed is at least $6.8 trillion, because it is exposed to significant losses if many of the assets guaranteed by the Fed deteriorate in value. The FDIC, Barofsky writes, has contributed $2 trillion in “new gross potential support.” The Federal Housing Finance Agency – “under whose auspices fall the Government Sponsored Enterprises such as Fannie Mae [and] Freddie Mac,” – has effectively provided more than $6 trillion in gross potential support. Treasury itself, Barofsky concludes, has contributed nearly $4 trillion of potential support to the economy beyond the TARP program itself. And Barofsky points out the at the non-TARP programs, which are far larger than the TARP itself, do not come with the strings that the high-profile TARP money itself comes with, including executive compensation, and they don’t necessarily require congressional approval. And beyond the ability to tally their costs, Barofsky has no authority as an auditor over the non-TARP programs. The hearing before the House Oversight Committee will be held at 10:00 a.m. Tuesday in room 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

Democrats agree to IMF money in U.S. war bill

Tue Jun 2, 2009 4:26pm EDT

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. Congress have reached a deal to boost support to the International Monetary Fund, lawmakers' aides said on Tuesday, a victory for President Barack Obama who pledged to help the lender assist countries in the global economic crisis.

The war funding measure will provide a $100 billion credit line to the IMF, increase the U.S. member contribution to the IMF by $8 billion and authorize the United States to back the IMF's plan to sell 400 tons (12.97 million ounces) of gold, said the aides, who declined further identification.

Obama had pleaded with the House of Representatives and the Senate to approve the provisions and the full funding package is expected to be completed in the coming days.

The bill must be voted on in both chambers before being sent to Obama. The House approved a $96.7 billion measure for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without including the IMF provisions while the Senate approved a $91.3 billion version with them.

The final package is also expected to include funding for eight Boeing Co C-17 military transport planes that the House approved but the Senate cast aside, one source said.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye said that "so far" 11 Lockheed Martin C-130 transport planes approved by the House also were in the compromise package.

Other unresolved disputes include how much additional economic aid to provide Pakistan.

The House ignored Obama's IMF request when it passed its version and Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a senior Democrat, expressed reservations about including it until European countries did more to stimulate their economies.

Obama's credibility has been on the line with world leaders because he pledged the support at a Group of 20 nations meeting in April. The G20 agreed to provide the IMF $500 billion more to help developing countries coping with the economic downturn.

"Even if the $500 billion isn't completely used, it is part of the overall strategy from this administration about building confidence around the world," said Nancy Birdsall, president of the Washington-based Center for Global Development.

Additionally, congressional authorization is needed for the U.S. representative to the IMF to vote on the gold sale.

Democrats could have some problems getting the final bill through the House because about 50 anti-war Democrats voted against it initially because they opposed the wars while senior House Republicans have expressed unease about including the IMF provisions in an emergency war funding bill.

"We should not be having this discussion. IMF funding has no business being included in the war supplemental" bill, said Representative Eric Cantor, a member of the Republican leadership.

It would take a defection of almost all Republicans and the anti-war Democrats for the bill to fail but because the measure funds U.S. troops in the field, it is unclear whether they are willing to vote down the measure.

Barack Hussein Obama: US "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"

Posted By: Toby Harnden at Jun 3, 2009 at 04:14:00 [General] Posted in: Foreign Correspondents Tags: Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, cairo, Islam,muslim, Riyadh It is important to note that "if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world". So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama. That's right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president's attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday. Petrified of the potential political fallout of being branded a Muslim, Candidate Obama - a practicing Christian - never used the name "Hussein" and its use was frowned upon as a forbidden code for the nutty accusation that he was some kind of Islamic Manchurian candidate. No more. To say Barack Hussein Obama - BHO for short - now appears to be the height of political correctness. As I argue in this analysis for the Telegraph dead tree edition, Obama is seeking to return to a Middle East policy based on realism - buttressed by the bona fides of his own multi-cultural (including Muslim) background. In Strasbourg two months ago, the president tried out his full name. Days later in Ankara, he was introduced to the Turkish parliament by his full name. As ABC's Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller astutely outline here, the Obama administration is embracing the new president's inner Muslim, as it were. Deputy national security adviser stated that Obama had "experienced Islam on three continents...growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans [are] a key part of Illinois and Chicago". So that's once, twice, three times a Muslim? Just in case the Arab world hasn't yet got this message of inbuilt tolerance, Mr Obama himself has gone a step further. In an interview with France's Canal Plus released on Tuesday evening, he suggested that the United States might be a Muslim country. Obama said he wanted to "create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians". So far, so blah - President George W. Bush often expressed much the same sentiments. But then, as is his habit , Obama turned the concept around. "Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.  "And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.  And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples." Obama said in Turkey that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation". John McCain wascriticised in 2007 for saying the US was "a Christian nation", lateramending this to "a Judeo-Christian valued nation". Of course, the concept of separation of church and state, which derived from the First Amendment to the Constitution, means that the US is not officially a Christian nation or a nation of any other particular religion. Which means, I suppose, that the US is as much a Muslim nation as a Christian one. It's a bold - some might say audacious - turnaround by the president. It's also a classically Obamaesque move. During the 2008 campaign, he skillfully made himself, through his life story, the personification of change. Now, implicitly contrasting himself with the born-again, evangelical Bush who pursued a post-9/11 "crusade" against terrorism, Obama is presenting himself to the Islamic world as the personification of a new, tolerant - and, yes, partly Muslim - America. UPDATE: The excellent Don Surber crunches the numbers and points out that Obama's claim is highly dubious. According to Surber, the US has an estimated three to eight million Muslims, less than one per cent of the world's total and less than at least 23 other countries. The average claim for the US Muslim population is about six million. The precise figure is difficult to get because it's not included in US census data and many put the figure at much, much less. But even if we assume there are six million Muslims in the US, that makes it only the 34th biggest Muslim country in the world - behind Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, China, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Tanzania, Syria, Malaysia, Niger, Senegal, Ghana, Tunisia, Somalia, Guinea, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso and Tajikistan. UPDATE 2: Debbie Schlussel cites a reputable survey by Pew that puts the number of Muslims in the US at 1.8 million. This would make it the 48th biggest Muslim country, after the above list plus France, Libya, Jordan, Israel, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Germany, Kuwait, Oman, Eritrea, Lebanon and Serbia and Montenegro - and just above Britain, which would be the 50th.