Sunday Open Thread: Cheka Edition

Obama has surrounded himself with Socialist and communist eggheds who have never held jobs that were not government subsidized.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by BigTweeting: BigGovt: Sunday Open Thread: Cheka Edition: Today, in 1917, Cheka, the first Soviet secret po.. http://bit.ly/50uBzm #BigTweet…

Make no mistake. The solution MUST begin in 2010… Are you ready?

Go to: "2012 Victory or Death"on Utube.

Looks like the commies of the 60's finally got their foot in the door, especially with bully's and haters like Rham Emanuel, and the likes…WE THE PEOPLE are going to get physical on the next march on Washington..if we want our country back…these criminals in the White House can keep changing the laws until we have no more rights, if we wait too long!!

I'd like to see the WH visitor's log for today- probably a big party with Andy Stern and other Bolshevik twits, LOL

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com...

Serve.gov…need I say more? Obama's got his brownshirts and all they had to do was sign up to "volunteer".

Two plus two equals four!

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/newt-gingrich-vide...

Somebody in America gets it! Unfortunately, most Americans do not even know that many of our founding fathers, i.e., such as Ben Franklin (besides being a Mason, he was also an Illuminati member for the coming "New World Order!" However, it had to be kept "secret" or the new "commoner's" fleeing Europe's tyranny would have killed most of our forefathers at the stake, such as Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc.!
PS: The Illuminati was set into motion only a month before our Declaration of Independence! Not to mention, in New York of all places, in 1790, it was revealed by a Mason, and he was killed before much was able to get out!

Do you know at what point that changes?

I wish one of these sunday morning anchors who are interviewing David Axelrod what will they do if they pass HCR and it doesn't work. What happens if premeiums go up (they will). What happens if more are not insured (they won't). What happens if Seniors are denied care (they will). What happens when the new taxes sends our economy into a DEPRESSION (it will).

Will our god finally say he was wrong?

I don't think so.

when we are not allowed to peaceably assemble. then it will be time to break out the guns. UNtil then bullhorns, emails, tea parties and voters registration drives should suffice, we can save the pitchforks, tar and feathers for a little while

everyone does that, Bush the elder was the director of teh CIA, and there are streets, squares, schools etc named after him, The FBI headquarters is named for J Edgar Hoover, the tradition isn't just a commie one. Remembe, tehy considered these guys heroes., and in a sense they were, and they were very patriotic. heir hearts were in the right place, but their heads were up their arses

Да, он – страшный.

I fell asleep watching Casablanca and woke up watching Dr. Zhivago.

The way this site operates, I think, it would welcome Communism- as long as Breitbart is in charge.

Those who spoke out were called racists and laughed at. Remember?

The parties’ power is their money and party affiliation. Registering unaffiliated will strip their consumers away and force them to be ACCOUNTABLE.. Only (real) people in that district should be allowed to contribute. .Gerrymandering should be outlawed. Districts should about representation not affiliation. This list goes on.. Politicians don’t listen to the people because they don’t have to.. The electoral system has been rigged for re-election not representation. Registering unaffiliated works because it scares both government parties to death. This is a protest that will work because the parties base the evil acts on the numbers of party members..

A Nebraska Tragedy: The Selling of Ben Nelson Soul

We are a simple people in Nebraska but do not misinterpret the term "simple" to mean dumb. Far from it.

In Nebraska, we take you at what you say. We are not a people who likes parsing of words. We are not a people who likes shades of meaning. You say what you mean and you mean what you say and then you follow through on your words:
-"My vote is not for sale. Period." – Ben Nelson quoted in Lincoln Journal Star December 16, 2009

What Nebraskans woke up to this morning according to FOXNEWS:

-Critics were calling it the "cornhusker kickback" and the "Nebraska windfall," lobbing accusations of political deal-making at Nelson. "It's pretty obvious votes have been bought," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.

-But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Nelson's victory came at the expense of the other 49 states. "That puts an added burden on all the other states, including mine," he said on "Fox News Sunday. "McCain suggested the Obama administration wouldn't be in such a position if it had governed in a more bipartisan way.

"That's why they're in the position of having to purchase the last vote or two," McCain said.

And how about that moral dilemma on abortion on which we heard so much from Nelson for the past several weeks. The reaction to the "compromise" language Nelson claims he fought so hard for can be found in the two statewide newspapers:

- “There is no pro-life Nebraskan more devastated by Senator Nelson's actions than myself,'' said Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life. “I have defended his record to Nebraskans and believed that he would stand on pro-life principles as he has on numerous occasions in the past. … It is a very sobering day for myself personally and for pro-lifers across Nebraska and the nation.” (Joseph Morton, Omaha World Herald)

-Johanns described the abortion compromise as nothing more than an “accounting gimmick” and said he could not imagine how any “pro-life senator” could support it. (Joseph Morton, Omaha World Herald)

-In a stunning choice of words, Republican U.S. Senator Mike Johanns described the abortion compromise negotiated by his Nebraska colleague as "reprehensible." (Don Walton, Lincoln Journal Star)

I believe that we will find that as the days go on and Nebraskans statewide come to realize how Senator Nelson sold his vote and his soul to Liberals in Washington, the anger will only increase.

Be assured America, we will clean up our own house . . .

until the government parties address these issues of representation they don't support a republic or freedom, but socialism.

Um, that's a joke, right, xhist? Never read Gualag Archipelago, huh? I see a big difference between G-Men and KGB killers. One was an organization of government-employed citizens targeting criminals. The other was an organization of government-employed criminals targeting citizens. I'll leave you to figure out which was which, since you seem to have all this down.

Pay czars, the snitch-a-neighbor website, the Fox News war and many other things are SO disturbing to me.

The liberals have got to go, and if that means holding my nose to vote for a Republican that I don't like, I will. The liberals HAVE to be in the minority in 2010.

dont overcomplicate things, socialism and communism are the same thing…government intervention

so do most photos of obama . gazing ahead towards a glorious socialist future.

You mean like leave the tar on low?

what and no state dinner at the whitehouse to memorialize the anniversery that is very odd.

How can you demand a change from democrat to republican when in reality it changes nothing.. Both gov parties have been stealing freedom and wasting taxpayer dollars forever.. The parties only seek power and money.. THIS POST proves the people have learned nothing. My guy is the good guy stupidity is alive and well and thus the politicians will continue to destroy this country. If this country falls apart and YOU are looking for someone to blame because you cold and hungry, just look in the mirror because you refused to hold them accountable.

There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government
'Global' thinking won't necessarily solve the world's problems, says Janet Daley

By Janet Daley
Published: 7:24PM GMT 19 Dec 2009
Comments 295 | Comment on this article

The committee to save the world: Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown and other leaders at the Copenhagen climate talks Photo: AFP/GETTY
There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)
Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.

Related Articles
This brave new world we live in needs leaders based in reality
FSA slams stable door, but policy-making on the hoof won't solve crisis
Afghanistan election: Would you risk your life to cast a vote?
Why the banking system won't be emerging from intensive care anytime soon
G8 summit must recognise that green taxes won't help the environment
The dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of "global agreements" reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people

Well, yes and no. Calling a problem "global" is meant to imply three different things: that it is the result of the actions of people in different countries; that those actions have impacted on the lives of everyone in the world; and that the remedy must involve pretty much identical responses or correctives to those actions. These are separate premises, any of which might be true without the rest of them necessarily being so. The banking crisis certainly had its roots in the international nature of finance, but the way it affected countries and peoples varied considerably according to the differences in their internal arrangements. Britain suffered particularly badly because of its addiction to public and private debt, whereas Australia escaped relatively unscathed.
That a problem is international in its roots does not necessarily imply that the solution must involve the hammering out of a uniform global prescription: in fact, given the differences in effects and consequences for individual countries, the attempt to do such hammering might be a huge waste of time and resources that could be put to better use devising national remedies. France and Germany seem to have pulled themselves out of recession over the past year (and the US may be about to do so) while Britain has not. These variations owe almost nothing to the pompous, overblown attempts to find global solutions: they are largely to do with individual countries, under the pressure of democratic accountability, doing what they decide is best for their own people.
This is not what Mr Brown calls "narrow self-interest", or "beggar my neighbour" ruthlessness. It is the proper business of elected national leaders to make judgments that are appropriate for the conditions of their own populations. It is also right that heads of nations refuse to sign up to "legally binding" global agreements which would disadvantage their own people. The resistance of the developing nations to a climate change pact that would deny them the kind of economic growth and mass prosperity to which advanced countries have become accustomed is not mindless selfishness: it is proper regard for the welfare of their own citizens.
The word "global" has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily "narrow" and self-serving. (Never mind that a "global agreement" will almost certainly be disproportionately influenced by the most powerful nations.) Nor is our era so utterly unlike previous ones, for all its technological sophistication. We have always needed multilateral agreements, whether about trade, organised crime, border controls, or mutual defence.
If the impact of our behaviour on humanity at large is much greater or more rapid than ever before then we shall have to find ways of dealing with that which do not involve sacrificing the most enlightened form of government ever devised. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. "Globalism" is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the "blood and soil" nationalism that gave rise to fascism.
The nation-state has never quite recovered from the bad name it acquired in the last century as the progenitor of world war. But if it is to be relegated to the dustbin of history then we had better come up with new mechanisms for allowing people to have a say in how they are governed. Maybe that could be next year's global challenge.

… [Trackback]…

[...] There you will find more Infos: biggovernment.com/publius/2009/12/20/sunday-open-thread-snowball-edition/ [...]…