Smart lawyer Jonathan Turley (and others) just now noticing Obama cult? Honestly?

Standard

Quite honestly, after six-to-seven years of warnings issued about the emerging cult of Barack Obama — and about what a disaster he would be for the United States — not to mention the rest of the world — you would think there would be few left on the planet who are not fully aware of the Obama cult.

Guess that assumption is wrong. Chris Hoskinson writes in his Washington Examiner article, Obama’s cult of personality has turned US into ‘a nation of enablers’,

    Law professor Jonathan Turley said he’s astonished by how passive Americans — especially Democrats — have been to President Obama’s abuse of executive power, which he said has become so dangerous it’s making the U.S. political system unstable.

    “I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period,” Turley, who teaches at George Washington University, told Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Wednesday.

    “I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the Left.”

First of all, many on the Left did anything but “remained silent”, as the video embedded in my wayback machine post below clearly shows. They loudly and visibly embraced “The Won”.

Hoskinson continues:

    But Turley’s a bit late to the party in noticing the Obama cult of personality that has turned the Democratic Party into a bunch of Soviet-style apparatchiks. It’s been apparent from the moment Obama claimed what he called a “historic” Democratic nomination victory in a June 3, 2008, speech in St. Paul, Minn., when he said that “this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our Image as the last, best hope on Earth.”

Hoskinson is correct, Turley is a bit late to the party. Very late.

As my archived post below clearly illustrates, the cult was on full public display for anyone with eyes, ears, and half a brain to see — the week following Super Tuesday — and readily available to view ever since on YouTube.

One Nation, Under Obama, August 9, 2008 (with all emphasis added):

Paul Bedard at “Washington Whispers” wrote August 7, 2008:

    George Bush had his three-fingered W salute that supporters flashed when greeting him at presidential campaign events in 2000. And now, if a Los Angeles creative agency gets its way, Sen. Barack Obama will see fans meet him with his own salute like the one above. “Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama’s nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future,” says Rick Husong, owner of The Loyalty Inc.

Well, Mr. Bedard should have been paying closer attention, because the Obots have long made the “Big O” for Obama at his rallies.

The following was filmed February 12, 2008, at Obama’s rally at the Kohl Center in Madison, Wisconsin, by Uncle Jimbo of Black Five. Watch at the 0:56 second mark.

More on this from Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and Sadly, No!.

In an update, Vanderleun wrote August 8, 2008, the MUST READ Defining Dumbness Down at American Digest.

Plus, Weasel Zippers said that the caption should not read Sign of Progress but, rather, this:

Funny how things have stayed the same. Who knew? Well, Mr. Turley, lots of people — but not you, it seems.

Is Self-Insurance an ObamaScare Loophole? Could Be.

Standard

TheTeaParty.net is offering an alternative to the seemingly endless ObamaScare nightmare: Bankrupt Obamacare.

    Obamacare is a disaster. We know it and you know it. Obamacare means higher healthcare costs for all of us, less hours for workers, less jobs and no economic growth. It is wildly unpopular by all polls and my neighbors and your neighbors!

    Luckily, through a very big loophole, there is a way out of Obamacare for all Americans through self-insurance! Self-insurance currently covers 61% of the American people and it is exempt from the worst parts of Obamacare. If enough people get on self-insurance it will financially flip Obamacare upside down and it will be insolvent. Sign up below to get more information – trust us, you’ll want to learn about it!

The site leads readers through a five-step plan to self-insurance security. Can I vouch for it? No, as I have no personal insight into the plan. What I do recommend, as always, is to educate yourself and make your own informed decision.

The site claims that “This isn’t some obscure plan; 61% of insured Americans are self-insured through their businesses.” It does sound promising.

In fact, last November, George E. Pataki, the former governor of New York, called self-insurance an escape hatch:

    As ObamaCare continues to crash, smaller businesses and their employees may have an escape hatch from many of the law’s worst features — but the administration and its left-wing allies are trying to close the door.

    When Congress passed ObamaCare, Republicans managed to secure important protections for “self-insurance” that now provides a way for businesses to escape the most egregious parts of the law: Self-insured health plans are exempt from many of the taxes and mandates that ObamaCare otherwise imposes on businesses and individuals.

    A self-insured health plan is one where the employer directly funds its own medical costs — that is, rather than paying premiums to an insurance carrier to cover its employees, it sets aside the cash to cover anticipated expenses. (The business often hires an insurance company to manage employees’ claims, but the insurer isn’t actually selling insurance, just its claims-processing services).

    Today, more than 60 percent of workers in large corporations and 80 percent of unions, along with 15 percent of workers in small businesses, are covered by self-insured plans. In fact, most of the 100 million workers now covered by self-insured plans don’t even know it. The differences to them are that minimal.

    The exemption from many ObamaCare rules will encourage more businesses to shift to self-insurance — but there’s a nationwide drive to stop them.

    The White House is leading the charge to close what it calls the “self-insurance loophole” with a laundry list of tactics that were spelled out in a paper published by the hyper-liberal Center for American Progress, titled “The Threat of Self-Insured Plans Among Small Businesses.”

Surprised that CAP is once again leading the charge to “fix” Obama’s trainwreck of an administration and its biggest lawless policy? Don’t be. The fox is even in the henhouse as CAP co-founder John Podesta is holding little Barack by the hand for the next year to “fix” the fine mess “The ‘I’ Won” has made of things.

Last week BusinessWeek sounded the alarm that self-insurance threatens ObamaScare:

    Can an employer pay chronically ill workers to leave the company health plan and get insurance somewhere else? That’s a question some business owners are asking, now that no one can be turned away from individual health plans under Obamacare.

    The potential loophole in the Affordable Care Act could threaten the viability of Obamacare marketplaces if they get the most expensive-to-insure workers while companies keep healthier employees on their own plans. Some mid-sized companies that self-insure—that is, they pay the cost of employees’ medical claims directly—are at least talking about the idea. . . .

    The Affordable Care Act prompted predictions that many employers would drop coverage entirely and send all their workers to the exchanges. That hasn’t happened yet. If companies shift only their sickest employees into marketplace coverage, the practice could damage the marketplaces, which depend on premiums from younger, healthier participants to help cover the costs of older, sicker members. “I don’t believe the architects of the ACA set out for this to happen,” Twietmeyer says. “If employer groups have the opportunity to carve out high-cost claimants, that would accelerate the death spiral of the exchanges, because they won’t be able to balance the risk.”

    There were “anti-dumping” provisions in the Affordable Care Act that prohibited employers from pushing sick employees into high-risk insurance pools that were created to cover individuals with preexisting health conditions until exchange coverage became available this year. But those provisions were not carried through into the rules governing exchange coverage.

Small businesses and their employees are the enemy, you see, that are threatening to take ObamaScare down. They must be destroyed. Wait for it. It’s coming and John Podesta has the plan in his left pocket.

You can listen to Rush Limbaugh’s take on the Pataki plan here:

There is a lot more information online about self-insurance. Keep digging. The truth is out there.

‘Political Correctness’ has run amok. Pssst! It’s the plan

Standard

In response to the recent A&E Duck Dynasty PR stunt (you have to ask yourself who benefits the most from this and the answer is obvious), Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal nails the political correctness crowd:

    “The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.”

There is a direct cause-and-effect for why one must be politically correct–or else. It is by design and progressives (aka Marxists) own it.

In October 2010, while I was doing some follow-up research on some of those who were no longer members of the Obama administration, I came across a post by Matt at the Conservative Hideout blog. He quoted from the 2007 book, The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World by Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone, to explain “Cultural Marxism” and the origins of “political correctness” such as that espoused by Marxists (aka progressives) like Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Barack Obama.

A commenter wrote September 9, 2009, shortly after avowed communist and “Green Jobs” Czar Van Jones’s midnight-departure from the White House: “Van Jones was a vocal practitioner of classic Frankfurt School incrementalism, and he even said so in a recent interview.”

In an April 2008 audio interview by “Uprising Radio” with Van Jones, Jones advocated incrementalism — the use of “minimum goals and maximum goals” — in bringing about a ‘complete revolution’ to combat the science fiction threat of Global Warming.”

The following transcript comes from the Freedom Eden blog:

    VAN JONES: One of the things that has happened too often to progressives is that we don’t understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals.

    Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, ‘OK, now we want reparations for slavery; we want redistribution of all wealth; and we want to legalize mixed marriages,’ if that had been their…, if they’d have come out with a maximum program the very next day, they’d have been laughed at.

    Instead, they came out with a very minimum program. You know, ‘we just want to integrate these buses.’ The students [inaudible] came out with a very minimum program. ‘We just want to sit at the lunch counter.’ But inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954 to 1968, complete revolution was on the table for this country.

    And I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we’re saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism where you know, at least we’re not, you know, fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet.

    Will that be enough? No, it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond systems of exploitations and oppression altogether, but that’s a process. And I think what’s great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we’re going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.

Another blog called Jones the “master of incrementalism.” I decided then that this was something we needed to know more about and understand for future reference. More than three years later, many still do not get it.

The following three videos on “The History of Political Correctness” from the Free Congress Foundation about political correctness and the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory are a good introduction.

The first clip provides a historical background dating to World War I:

In the second clip we learn about Cultural Marxism and political correctness’s “most fashionable cause,” environmental activism — then the most recent “cause” embraced by Van Jones.

The narrator, William S. Lind, Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism of the Free Congress Foundation, mentions a work of the Frankfort School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno’s 1944 book, Dialectic of enlightenment: philosophical fragments (available as a Google book here, notes on the book are here, and Marxism.com provides a chapter, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” here).

You may not recognize the name of Frankfurt School member, Herbert Marcuse, who taught at U.S. universities for decades until his death in 1979, and who in the 60s became the “guru of the New Left.” You should, however, recognize reference at the 6-minute mark to mention of “victim groups,” which Marcuse saw as necessary for a “politically correct coalition.” These “victims”, David Horowitz says in the clip, were students, Blacks, women, gays “or whatever it was” that fit into Marcuse’s “fluid Marxism.” These groups were to act as agents of revolution as a substitute for the working class.

In the third and final clip David Horowitz ties Political Correctness into the radical movement of which he was once a part.

Intellectual historian Martin Jay, of University of California, Berkeley, notes that Marcuse is responsible for the concept of “liberating tolerance,” meaning intolerance for ideas or movements coming from the Right and tolerance for any ideas from the Left — “a recipe for repression.”

Also see William S. Lind’s The Roots of Political Correctness, November 19, 2009, following the massacre of soldiers at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Hasan. Published in The American Conservative, Lind attempts to explain how this happened and sums up a lot of the material covered in the above video clips.

Matt writes:

    When people “wake up,” or are questioning the differences between what they see, and what they have been taught, they frequently ask, “How did this happen?”

    People see others being rewarded for failure, or penalized for success. Politicians lie, and lie egregiously. People that tell the truth are vilified. Professors and public school teachers consistently and persistently teach against our nation and heritage, and penalize those who do not “go along.” Too many of our citizens believe that it is appropriate to confiscate the wealth of another to subsidize their own failed lifestyles. Our president apologizes for our nation’s defending freedom, and others blame us for terrorist attacks that take the lives of thousands of innocent people. Our children are not educated-they are indoctrinated. Our children are over sexualized, by their schools, by their peers, and by the entertainment industry. They know little of our nation and government, but they know how to put a condom on a banana. The list could go on and on. One thing is clear, our nation has changed, and it continues on a frightening course.

    To describe what has happened to our nation, and more importantly, our culture, we have to look at the architects of that change. The fact is that our culture has been targeted for decades, and most Americans are completely unaware of the nature of this attack. It has been incremental, and has impacted all of our institutions.

    [...]

    I think it’s easy to see that the long march through the institutions has been largely completed, and the steps to taking political power are well underway. They have education, law, media, and many other related fields. Considering that they want to do away with alternative media, ban home schooling, and use law to accomplish both, the intent becomes clear.

    [...]

    This is one of the big lies of the left. Anyone who believes in freedom is a “fascist.” Anyone who believes in doing what the Marxists or Fascists actually did, are progressives! This doesn’t actually present a way of thinking and doing that might be better, it’s about silencing and discrediting dissent. If you can discredit a person, than you discredit their ideas. The progressives have to avoid discussing ideas, especially when the ideas are superior to what they are trying to do.

Matt’s conclusion provides an answer for those who still cannot understand how we got to where we are today. He writes:

    So, when we are referred to as racists for questioning Obama’s policies, we know why. When there is no outrage when Van Jones is an avowed Communist, we see through the ignorance. When an untold number of protesters swarm Washington DC, and the MSM minimizes it, we see the cause. When our children are indoctrinated, we see the purpose.

    They infiltrated the institutions, just as they said they would. They have since trained/indoctrinated generations of people. Think for a moment… why are so many in the MSM are ignoring Obama’s lies, his czars, and the ACORN story? They were indoctrinated! They went to the universities! The Cultural Marxists occupied them first! Why are so many public school teachers towing the line? Same thing! They went to the universities! The list is virtually endless. They have turned education into a leftist indoctrination machine, allowing them to then infiltrate every other institution in our nation.

    This ties together with other topics that we have discussed. For example, the Alinsky Method seems to be nothing more than a playbook for Critical Theory and tolerant repression. It is a method to achieve the end. The media’s ignorance and lies serve as well. All of the indoctrinated institutions seem to act in the same way to work towards the goals, and circles the wagons for defense.

    Where does this leave us? We are in a precarious situation. Our institutions are in the possession of people that would fundamentally change our republic. The vast majority of them have no clue that they are working towards Marxist goals. That is the evil brilliance of cultural Marxism. The minions work towards the end goal, one of which they unaware. But, we are aware, and that is a start.

An extended 197-minute DVD is available from Original Intent. Regarding the Frankfurt School, Original Intent writes:

    The Frankfurt School is the name given to the social engineers that fled Nazi Germany in order to set up their Marxist experiment in the United States. In the 1960s, while the BabyBoomers were ripe for cultural transformation, cultural Marxists such as Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm and Charles Reich practiced “critical theory,” “androgyny” and “cultural pessimism” in their “long march through the cultural institutions” — institutions such as the arts, cinema, theater, literature, universities, public school system, clergy and today what’s become known as the mass media. Find out how the culture you are now living, sleeping, eating and breathing in has been bastardized by cultural Marxism, also known as “political correctness.”

Surprised? You’re supposed to be. Incrementalism is the watch word. Just ask Van Jones.

FCC plans to track Obama’s ‘Wireless Welfare’ corruption it enabled

Standard

Here we have another story from William Bigelow at Breitbart.com that reports on a situation I outlined in detail in March 2011 — the inevitable fraud, waste, and abuse of Barack Obama’s bribe to “poor” voters, the so-called ‘Obama Phone’. Bigelow writes that the FCC is just now getting around to looking into the myriad possibilities for corruption (and leaves out the inconvenient fact that the FCC enabled this bilk-the-taxpayer and bilk-the-paying-phone-user scheme):

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has finally started to crack down on waste and fraud in its phone subsidy program for the poor by compiling a database of subscribers.

    The $1.85 billion program, called Lifeline, and popularly referred to as the “Obama Phone” program after a viral video of a woman saying she would vote for President Obama because he gave her a free phone, was started in 1984 so that the poor could communicate with families, emergency services, and jobs. The program, which pays for their phone service but not the phones, has been funded by charges on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer.

    Some of the companies receiving funding through Lifeline offer free phones to subscribers. As of early 2013, Lifeline paid carriers $9.25 per subscriber per month for free or discounted wireless service.

Here’s what I wrote about this ‘program’ going on three years ago:

The I Hate the Media blog brought my attention to the subject of “free” cell phones for the poor.

IHM informed that provider SafeLink Wireless had been joined by ReachOut Wireless.

Here’s ReachOut’s sales pitch, with emphasis added:

    Did I mention that you can get a free cell phone? Believe it or not, if you are considered “low income”, you can. Low income families have it hard. Working hard, paying off bills, and taking care of everyone’s needs is a difficult task. Thankfully, the list of government-assisted products and services now includes a free cell phone.

Like SafeLink, ReachOut ran TV ads:

ReachOut also left no rock unturned. People interested in its “free” cell phone program could find more details on ReachOut’s Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook pages — accessed at the local “free” public library, of course.

And, of course, we know that cell phone companies aren’t doing this for “free” — meaning they are getting something for something.

It’s the federal government program called Lifeline Assistance that’s so tempting to these carriers — and it’s been around for awhile:

    According to the Federal Communications Commission, Lifeline service was started in 1984 to ensure that everyone had telephone service for emergencies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened competition to new wireline and wireless providers.

The New York Times reported in June 2009 that wireless carriers were receiving subsidies of up to $10 a month to provide people with service that was then valued at $3 a month — leaving a $7 monthly profit. Not too shabby.

The FCC said Lifeline offered up to a $10 discount on basic monthly service. That’s a $10 profit per month per customer for cell phone service providers anyway you look at it.

How lucrative is this? Well, between November 2008 and June 2009, for example, the number of people receiving subsidized wireless service had doubled to 1.4 million users. Do the math.

At the time, TracFone Wireless, a Florida provider of prepaid mobile service — with 10 million customers — became the “face of the fledgling subsidized cellphone.”

SafeLink Wireless, by the way, was created by TracFone Wireless.

TracFone has been spreading the wealth by getting approval to run the program one state at a time. As of October 2009, SafeLink had more than 2 million customers and was available in 33 states — and second only in numbers to AT&T. Again, do the math.

How does TracFone find new customers? Most likely they find TracFone:

    The company says the economy makes the audience particularly receptive. “We’ll read that more people are signing up for food stamps and look at our numbers and see volume rising,” said Jose Fuentes, director of government relations for Tracfone. “It’s not scientific proof,” he added. “But we know times are tough.”

You see, those eligible for “free” cell phones have to be on one of several government assistance programs:

    . Food Stamps
    . Medicaid
    . Federal Public Housing Assistance or Section 8
    . Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
    . Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    . National School Free Lunch Program
    . Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Note that the number of those eligible on food stamps alone has sky-rocketed to perverse proportions: As of December 6, 2013, nearly 48 million residents (not necessarily American citizens) in the U.S. are on food stamps, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In September 2013, one in five households, between 20 and 23 million households — not individuals — were on food stamps. That is more than the total number of households in the Northeast U.S.

From where had the funding for so many food stamps come? Porkulus 2009. The Christian Science Monitor reported:

    The cuts [to the food stamp program November 1] come at a time when more Americans are on food stamps than at almost any other point in the past decade. In fiscal year 2006, about a year before the recession, the number of people on food stamps was about 26 million. As of this July [2013], the most recent month for which data are available, almost 48 million people are enrolled in the program, or about a seventh of the US population.

Additionally, if prospective customers did not receive any of the listed public assistance programs, they might also qualify based on total household gross monthly income.

The good news was that only one person in a household could legally participate in the taxpayer-subsidized program. Applicants had to re-apply annually. This assumes, of course, that applicants were playing by the rules — and it appears that something has sufficiently gone amok now to catch the FCC’s attention.

If you want an idea of how some participants have been scamming the system, the following New York Times article let the cat out of the bag:

    The free phone is not, as it is for some others in the program, their sole form of telecommunications. Out of the roughly $1,600 they make each month after taxes, they pay $159 for a landline telephone, high-speed Internet and cable television. But the cellphone, Mr. Simmons says, gives him the flexibility to tell his wife or daughter his comings and goings or to stay in touch when he is at the doctor.

No need for everyone to go to the public library to sign up after all.

Additionally, Mr. Simmons is truly scamming the system. The FCC’s guidelines state the subsidized service is for the “primary” home phone, even if it’s a cell phone — not in addition to the primary phone.

Can we correctly call the FCC enablers? I think it’s fitting.

Next question: How are the “free” cell phones subsidized by the “federal government”?

The subsidy comes by way of paying telecommunications users. The FCC explained:

    All telecommunications service providers and certain other providers of telecommunications must contribute to the federal USF [Universal Service Fund] based on a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues. These companies include wireline phone companies, wireless phone companies, paging service companies, and certain Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

    Some consumers may notice a “Universal Service” line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. These charges usually appear as a percentage of the consumer’s phone bill. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the USF. They also cannot collect from a Lifeline program participant USF fees on any services supported by universal service.

SafeLink explained how this redistribution plan works:

    SafeLink Wireless applies the Universal Service Fund subsidy to an allotment of free airtime minutes and TracFone provides the wireless handset at the company’s expense. Instead of receiving a subsidized monthly telephone bill for Lifeline service, SafeLink converts the total amount of discounted service into minutes each month for one year. The cell phone offers in-demand features: voicemail, text, three-way calling, call waiting, caller ID and access to 911.

Check your bills for USF charges to see if YOU are subsidizing Wireless Welfare.

This is a program that was designed to provide a safety service for low-income users, not millions of dollars in subsidies for cell phone companies. You have to wonder how the “social justice” side of this equation balances with the anti-capitalism side for progressives.