Fox’s O’Reilly Can’t Apparently Use Footage From His Own Network: Chuckie Schumer “Doesn’t Care” About the “Fairness Doctrine”?

Fox’s Griff Jenkin’s played “chase the politicians” on Capitol Hill Thursday for Bill O’Reilly. As much fun as it was to watch Chuck Schumer speedwalking down a Washington corridor, there was more information available. Why does O’Reilly tell only part of the story? Are we too dense to pay attention long enough?

On Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, the “No-Spin master” did another half story on an issue. I’m becoming more convinced than ever, that either Bill thinks his viewers have the attention spans of gnats, or he has one of the worst research teams in the media business, who don’t even seem to know how to use the internet.

In any case, the half story this evening regarded the Conservative Speech Suppression (aka “Fairness”) Doctrine. He sent reporter Griff Jenkins, to Capitol Hill to do one of those amusing deer-caught-in-the-headlights segments where a reporter chases politicians or other miscreants with a bright light and tries to stick a microphone in their faces whilst they proceed to look like the speedwalker in the banned Mr. T Snickers commercial.

Griff’s mission was to question lawmakers about their position on the Doctrine. During Mr. Bill’s “Talking Points Memo” the audience was treated to the surgically frozen smile of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The second lawmaker to be questioned, and to his credit, the only one of the three who actually stood still, was New Mexico Senator Ted Bingham.

Sen. Schumer of New York, was the third “contestant” and the one which most reminded me of the speedwalker. It’s just too bad Griff hadn’t brought along the tank, the Snickers, or, Mr. T.

Ok, let’s just pause a second an enjoy the visual on that one. [Pausing….visualizing….] Who among us wouldn’t love to watch Mr. T machine gun Chuckie Schumer with Snickers bars?

I can’t embed the O’Reilly video here, but “Talking Points” is the default listing that comes up on the O’Reilly portion of the Fox site. Click the title for the November 20 “Talking Points Memo” ‘Will Fairness Doctrine be reimposed?’

Of course the “Fairness” Doctrine is an important issue and the comments and reaction to reporters’ questions on the issue are interesting and informative viewing.

But, as has become obvious to me, and perhaps I’m just slow-witted or too willing to give the benefit of the doubt, it seems that Bill O’Reilly only tells part of most important stories.

Towards the end of his “Memo” O’Reilly commented that he spoke with Schumer sometime after Grif attempted to speak with him on Thursday afternoon, and Schumer said he “didn’t care about the issue, nor should he”. O’Reilly labeled this response as “a ruse”.

According to Merriam-Webster online:
ruse (noun): a wily subterfuge

Is anyone else tired of tap-dancing? Mr. Schumer’s statements to Bill were neither a “subterfuge” nor “wily”.

Let us call things what they actually are. When a feathered, beaked creature quacks, we call it a duck. When someone says something that is not true, we call it a lie.

And Chuckie Schumer did lie. On November 4, Election Day, on Foxs News Channel, Schumer equated talk radio with pornography. Perhaps after the imbecility of those comments, the estimable Mr. Schumer decided he’d better stop “caring” about the Fairness Doctrine, really quickly. He is right about one thing (kind of like a broken clock, it is accidentally right twice day) he shouldn’t care.

As if the pornography analogy were not enough, Chuckie has additional reason to continue to distance himself from the issue. Apparently he’s taking heat from people. I mean real people, not just people with pointy heads and huge egos.

On Monday, November 17, Mark Levin received a call to his radio show from a woman named Carla, from Brooklyn, New York.

Here is a transcript of the conversation:

Carla: Hi. I am so glad to talk to you and I’m also kind of nervous because I don’t want to end up like Joe the Plumber. Um, I had, an, let’s just say, an altercation with Charlie Schumer in the airport, at La Guardia, on Saturday night, that was pretty extensive and kind of –

Mark: Well, wait a minute, by “altercation” you mean a discussion.

Carla: Well, yeah, a heated discussion, about the Fairness Doctrine. I was deplaning, he was ahead of me, there was a fawning Democrat chick, who came over to him, and was like all over him and I had heard what he had said on, I think it was Fox News, on Election Day, I had heard his comments, about uh, about talk radio, and about the Fairness Doctrine which really repulsed me. So, I saw him there and he had this big smile on his face.

And I just said to him, “Don’t you dare try to take my talk radio away from me.”

And he said to me, “I’m not trying to take your talk radio away from you, but we can’t allow people to be nasty and rude and, and say things that aren’t true.”

And I said, “Are you kidding me? That’s what our democracy is about. Our democracy is messy.” I said, “Our democracy is about being able to be nasty and rude and sarcastic, and wrong when we want, and say opinions that may be wrong when we want. That’s what makes us different than Europe.”

And he, he just started lashing out at me. He told me how ignorant I was. And that they were not going to permit –

Mark: Wait a minute, wait a minute. So in other words, so in other words, he was shrill, and rude, and vile.

Carla: Well, he was obnoxious and shrill, and it was attacking my intelligence and uh, and my I.Q., [Mark: Gee whiz.] and I was dumb. And I told him that there was a very good country that believed in his philosophy and it was called Red China and it sounded like he was talking right out of, uh, Mao’s Red Book, and that that was not what our country was about and that our democracy was unique in that we allowed our discourse to be messy. And that we allowed our discourse to be wrong when it’s wrong. And that’s the nature of democracy.

Mark: Well, let me tell you something. You’re a patriot, uh, I wish more people would engage like you; politely but firmly, confronting the Left. Uh, and you’re not stupid, he’s a moron. And let me tell you Carla, what, what’s really upsetting Schumer. You know what it is, Carla?

Carla: No. I didn’t notice anything upsetting him, he looked pretty smug.

Mark: It’s me. Because he doesn’t like me, my mocking him. I know it gets under his skin because he thinks he’s greater and better than the rest of us. That’s why I mock all of them, to knock them down two or three notches. But when he says, “shrill” and all of that, he’s talking about me. Because he doesn’t like me ’cause I’m in his face, because I’ve challenged him, because I’ve urged him to come on this show, because I know he’s coward. But he’s a menace, he’s a menace to this country, he’s a menace to this society, he’s a menace to the judiciary. I think he should call a hearing. I think he should invite me and a couple of the others, we’ll come up there, and I’d be more than happy to testify under oath, assuming of course, that he would swear in, too, so he could be punished under penalty of perjury. I’d be more than happy to do that, Schmuckie. I’d be more than happy to educate you about the First Amendment, political speech, and if you don’t like it, it’s none of your damn business. I’d be happy to educate you, Schmuckie. What do you think of that, you dope?

And Carla, you’re I.Q. is twice of his. So you’re I.Q.’s about 140.

Carla: Yeah, well, I told him. I said I will fight to the death, for my, for my talk radio, for anyone else, to be obnoxious, to be as loud and as nasty as they want. Because –

Mark: But is he not the most obnoxious member of the Senate?

Carla: Of course, of course he is. But I said the point of our democracy is that we don’t censor our tones, we don’t control our tones.

Mark: Well, of course, of course, you’re right. And you’re extremely intelligent. But he wants to do by brute government force what the Constitution doesn’t allow him to do. You see, the Founding Fathers had dealt with people like Chuck Schumer; they’d dealt with people who would punish people dared to say things they didn’t believe in. They tried to squelch dissent, they tried to squelch free speech and that’s why, when they, when they passed the Bill of Rights, the very first one included the right to free speech, uh, and they would be appalled by Chuck Schumer. But Chuck Schumer doesn’t give a damn. He’s a power hungry menace. Thank you, Carla, God Bless You, and good job. You take care.

So, Bill O’Reilly devotes a “Talking Points Memo” to the topic, featuring Sen. Schumer, who had very recently (Nov. 4) made an ass out of himself on the issue. O’Reilly who works for the same network on which Schumer made his ridiculous statements, doesn’t play the tape. That’s getting your point across effectively, that’s following up. It’s about as effective coverage of the issue as O’Reilly’s was of Obama.

But there was additional information available regarding New Mexico’s Sen. Bingham. Although he was polite and forthright enough to stand still, to not play duck and cover, he is on record elsewhere, letting everyone know exactly where he stands on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine, with more detail and more in-depth information than the twenty seconds Griff spent with him.

In late October, Bingham was interviewed on New Mexico radio station, KKOB, on this issue. You can read more about this HERE and listen to an audio clip of it.

I’m not part of the highly paid staff of the #1 prime time show, on the #1 cable news network. I could find the information. Why can’t Bill O’Reilly?

I’ve begun to believe that with the telling of half-stories, O’Reilly isn’t only doing a disservice to his own viewers, but because he has the largest audience in cable TV, he is rather dangerous.

Advertisements

Leftie Attack Machine Sets Its Crosshairs on Rep. Michele Bachmann of MN, Pelosi Pledges $1 Mil to Opponent, Other $1 Mil+ Floods In, Her Residence Vandalized

**PLEASE NOTE** This blog has been relocated. For updates to this post and more recent posts, please click here.

Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann appeared on Chris Matthews’ Hardball on MSNBC on October 17.

That puts Rep. Bachmann at the top of the list of the extremely brave or the extremely unaware. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews? As if you’re going to get anything like a fair shake from the guy who feels a tingle going up his leg when he hears Barack Obama speak.

In any case, I haven’t seen such a good case of telling it like it is as I observed here, in a very long time. Bravo, Michelle.

Now, trouble of it is, there’s been just a wee bit of fall out from this appearance. She was invited onto The O’Reilly Factor Thursday, October 23 to talk about the appearance. She explained to Bill that she isn’t backing off of her statements about the fact that Barack Obama’s past associations are very, very troubling. She again cited Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. She told Bill the only thing she regrets is that Chris Matthews kept repeating the phrase “Anti-American”, laying a trap of sorts, and she rather fell into it by repeating the phrase back to him.

I don’t think she should back up or off one inch, because Obama has many very troubling associations many of whom are clearly Anti-American. What else do you call it when a man is involved with a terrorist group whose goal is to overthrow the government? That same man, as recently as 2003, label himself as a small “c” communist, and a Marxist. Is that American? He used funding for an education program to set up a U.N. school, a school based on the premises of the U.N., not the United States. How pro-American is any of that. Further, Rev. Jeremiah rate said God%$#@ America, claims that the U.S. purposely infected African Americans witht he AIDS virus. Now, if that’s not anti-American, I don’t know what is. That’s just two of Barack Obama’s associations. When someone has those kinds of associations, and refuses to explain them, that is troubling. It does cause anyone with common sense wonder; just how pro-American is Mr. Obama?

Michelle Bachmann does a better job of articulating why Sen. Obama’s past associations are so troubling and why his becoming President along with a Democratic majority in Congress is dangerous for the country better than the McCain campaign is doing.

On Tuesday, October 21, Bachmann appeared on Mike Gallagher’s radio show. The audio is available from Gallagher’s website if you prefer to listen and a transcript of the conversation is below:

Rep. Bachmann: Mike Gallagher, I am so proud of you and so honored to be on your show, I can’t tell you.

Mike Gallagher: Well, after the beating you took on the Today Show it’s nice for you to have a friendly environment for a few minutes. Even though you weren’t on there in person, they acted like you were Jack the Ripper for what you said. And of course, we played the audio clip of what you said originally, which I think what you said was a pretty reasonable thing to say.

Rep. Bachmann: And I have so much respect for you Mike, because when a Republican is attacked, this is what the Left do, they cow Republicans into silence because no one wants to go through what I am going through right now. When you question the radical policies of the next potential president of the United States may have, the Left just goes crazy. They have tried to define subjects that are on-limits and off-limits for this election. And I touched something that is off limits. I called Chris Matthews on the carpet, and I said, Chris, Look, if John McCain had named as two of his three life mentors, Jeremiah Wright and Father Flagger, you would have been all over him. You have failed to do your due diligence as the national media to check out Barack Obama, and they can’t take it, because the point is, what are Barack Obama’s policies? Will they be for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values? And I’ll tell you what, punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputting censorship in the form of the UnFairness Doctrine, and taking away the secret ballot from the worker has nothing to do with traditional American values. And that’s why your listeners need to know. Otherwise, the United States may be literally changed forever if Barack Obama becomes the next President, Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, Harry We Lost the War Reid the head of the Senate, and then they have the power to appoint three more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs to the Supreme Court, what are we going to do then?

Mike Gallagher: That’s precisely what’s in play here. I mean, you know, I was watching CNN, Willie Brown, from San Francisco, talking about all the agenda of pushing forth the agenda of gay marriage, and you know, under a liberal democrat president and Democrats in the Congress I mean, as San Francisco goes, so goes the rest of the country. You know, we’ll see a different country than the one we recognize. And yet, your comments were so… mainstream. And that’s what’s fascinating, there’s nothing you’ve said, even on the show, and I know that people have tried to corner you about your comments on the show, you didn’t say anything that isn’t what ordinary Americans are wondering about. a presidential candidate who talks about spreading around the wealth, and cavorting with a guy like Bill Ayers and a woman like Bernadine Dorn, who wants to overthrow capitalism. How is it not reasonable to wonder if that’s anti-American?

Rep. Bachmann: And what I did is touch a nerve, just like Joe the Plumber touched a nerve, by questioning Barack Obama punishing high tax rates and then Barack Obama saying he wants to spread the wealth around. That’s exactly what happened to me on Chris Matthews’ I touched a nerve, which shows how ultra-hypersensative Leftists are right now in this country. They know America is a center-right country. They know Americans would shrink back if they truly came to understand how radically Obama would change this country.  I mean, they’re so afraid. Nancy Pelosi came here to Minnesota and she went in front of the media and she said to the Minnesota media, that me, Michelle Bachmann, has dishonored the position that I hold in Congress, and that my statements, that my statements discredit me as a person. Then she got back on the plane and left. I’ll tell you, right now…

Mike Gallagher: By the way, she got a bigger plane. She didn’t like the plane she had. She got a bigger plane so she could fly around the country and discredit people like Michelle Bachmann.

Rep. Bachmann: Well, and that’s why shows like the Today show are banding together with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to get my scalp on a platter. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews alone have raised $1 million dollars for my opponent, just this last Friday.

Mike Gallagher: You’re kidding me.

Rep. Bachmann: No, no, over a million dollars in online contributions in that amount of time to take out my scalp. they’re serious about it cause they can’t stand the fact that I’m fighting them. Nancy Pelosi also pledged to donate $1 million toward my opponent. So $2 million have come in, Friday, to make sure that I lose this election. That’s why I need, I’m desperate for help right now, or else I lose.

Mike Gallagher: Give me your website address so people can donate from everywhere.

Rep. Bachmann: It’s michellebachmann.com. Michelle with one “l”, Bachmann, with two “n’s”. michellebachmann.com, and I’ll tell you what, the listeners on the left, they can’t give enough money to silence me. Oh you’re an extraordinary man, I just can’t thank you enough for your support, Mike. It’s humbling.

Mike Gallagher: We’re just so honored to be able to fight on behalf of somebody like you, who your story is so amazing. Alot of the people around the country don’t know your story. They don’t know about all of the foster children that you’ve brought into your home and changed their lives, they don’t know about your solid conservative values and your, you’re just such a terrific representative of what’s right about America, to see what you’re going through, because you basically said on a national tv show, hey you know, Barack Obama, I wonder about some of his pro-America positions  when he talks about spreading around the wealth. I think the media oughtta investigate and do an exposee about whether or not some of these members of Congress are either pro or Anti-American. That’s what gets you in so-called hot water? I mean.  Congresswoman, are the reports true, that the National Republican Campaign Committee has pulled out of funding your tv ads in the last few days here?

Rep. Bachmann: Yes, it’s true.

Mike Gallagher: Why?

Rep. Bachmann: Well, I don’t know. One thing, I give the Left a lot of credit. One thing they do, is they really hang tough with eachother. And I think there’s a lot we can learn from that. They support each other through thick and thin. And that’s why I have just so much respect and appreciation for you, Mike, you’re there, hanging in there through thick and thin. And um, I agree that I choose my words badly, and I’m sorry for that, but, um,  I didn’t commit a crime here, worthy of death. That’s kind of what’s happening in the media right.

Mike Gallagher: It’s certainly not worthy of losing your job, I mean it’s outrageous, that, as you said, the Left has managed to raise over a $1 million.

Rep. Bachmann: It’s over $2 million.

Mike Gallagher: Oh, it’s $2 million now. I gotta tell you, all of the emails that are flooding into us, when I just, about an hour ago, gave a $500 contribution to your campaign.

Rep. Bachmann: Oh, Mike.

Mike Gallagher: But listen to this, yesterday, I got a call from a guy in Beverly Hills, California, listening to me, he was so touched by what your up against, he made the maximum donation to your campaign of $2,300. I’ve got people, I’ve got a lady in Atlanta, she says, I’m broke, I gave Michelle Bachmann $10. I mean it’s incredible, I mean people are rallying around you because now’s the time to fight for what we believe, Congresswoman. We can’t let these bullies win.

Rep. Bachmann: And, you’ve just hit the point, Mike. This isn’t about Michelle Bachmann. Because I didn’t go to Washington, D. C. for a job or for a career. I was a Federal tax lawyer and I have five biological kids, and like you mentioned, my husband Marcus and I have raised over twenty-three foster kids. We just have a heart for kids who are at risk in our communityat risk. I had a full plate of things I had to do, but I was very concerned about the direction of our country. And that’s why I was willing to go on Chris Matthews’ show last Friday. I didn’t go on to get votes for myself. I didn’t go on to help myself. I went on because I was so concerned, like yourself, Mike, about what will happen to our country if we have Nancy Pelosi in the House, the values of Harry Reid in the Senate, and the ideas and the power of Barack Obama sitting in the Presidency, with the ability to appoint three more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs to the Supreme Court. Because we will see punishing-high tax rates. They aren’t shy about this. Two days ago, Barney Frank, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee that I sit on, said we need to have massive spending increases, not worry about deficits and then raise taxes. They aren’t shy about it. This is what theyre planning to do. They will punish success, like the Joe the Plumbers of this world who want to succeed, that American dream will go away. That is why my race is so crucial. Because I’m a fighter, and I take it to them. I take it to them everday on the floor of the United States Senate. And I took it to ’em on Hardball with Chris Matthews. And I walked into a trap and I got tripped up because Chris Matthews was used the word over and over and over again. He was driving home the word “anti-Amerian”. Foolishly, I repeated back to him, in my response, the word “anti-American”. I wish I wouldn’t have done that. But that being the case, I don’t back away at all from my concern for my country.

Mike Gallagher: Please don’t. Please don’t. And let me tell you what we’re trying to do here. Just so you know, because millions of Americans, I think, are touched by your passion. We’ve linked your website to mine, so we’re inviting listeners to go to mikeonline.com to make any kind of contribution they can. And, furthermore, we’re now in touch with our station in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, the Twin Cities, the Patriot, and I’m trying to figure out a way to get there Wednesday night, and bring my buddy, Jackie Mason, whose the great comedian.

Rep. Bachmann: Oh, he’s so talented.

Mike Gallagher: Well, he’s funny and he supports you, Mi-. He wants to either deliver in person or by video, a stand-up message for you and we might be able to pull off a fundraiser Wednesday night in the Twin Cities on your behalf, so we’ll keep everybody posted on that. Stay up, Congresswoman, don’t get down on us, we need you to keep fighting.

Rep. Bachmann: What a doll you are, I appreciate it. You know, this has really unhinged a lot of people. Yesterday, my home was vandalized. WE have a white painted house – [Mike Gallagher:] What?! [Rep. Bachmannsomeone took black spray paint yesterday, came to my home and sprayed black paint on my house, that said the word “scum”, spray painted my driveway.

Mike Gallagher: Are you kidding me?

Rep. Bachmann: This has gotten people completely unglued. It’s the front page of all our big newspapers. Big photos of me and essentially putting a hairshirt on me, telling the world here in Minnesota that I’ve committed the most offensive crime known to man. It is unbelievable, huge photos, above the fold, banner headlines on every night on the local news, on all of our radio stations. You haven’t seen anything like this.

Mike Gallagher: Wow.

Rep. Bachmann: They see, they smell blood. They want a scalp, because they want to silence someone whose been willing to touch the nerve of what Barack Obama could do to change our country forever –

Mike Gallagher: Not to mention your Democrat opponent in Congress. We’re going to keep fighting for you. We hope we’ll see you Wednesday night in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Michelle Bachmann, God Bless You, hang in there, don’t get down.

Rep. Bachmann: Thank you.

So, the thanks that Michelle Bachmann has gotten for standing up to the ubber-left media and just calling a spade a spade, is to now have a bullseye placed right on her forehead.

Whatever can be done to help her, needs to be done. Not only is she willing to stand up and say what most politicians are not saying about Barack Obama, she was out front on the energy issue, she voted against the bailout bill, twice. This woman needs to be sent back to Congress, there are so few politicians like her.

To donate to her campaign, visit this website.

Did Barney Frank Contribute a New Word to the Political Lexicon? Did He Say “Changeinism”?

A new word for our political dictionary?

A new word for our political dictionary?

**PLEASE NOTE**  This blog has moved. For this and recent posts, click here.

On Monday of this week, Rep. Barney Frank spoke about a stimulus package recently proposed by House Democrats:

I think at this point, there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending. At this time, I think deficit fear needs to take a second seat. I do think this is a very important time for a very big dose of changeinism[?].

Yes, I believe later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I believe there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.

On Glenn Beck’s Tuesday radio show, Glenn discussed these statements with the show’s producer, Stu, when both discovered Frank’s apparently newly coined word. And it’s a gem. On the first two rounds of listening to the audio clip, it sounded as if Frank may have been saying “changelism”.

Stu pondered whether or not the word “changelism” means “change by vandalism”.

The show’s first caller postulated that the word new word was a combination of socialism + change.

The second caller speculated that Frank really meant that the country needs a big dose of Keynesianism. The theory of Keynesian economics was largely employed during the New Deal. A number of Keynesian principles have been with us ever since (think the Fed). The central tenet of this theory is that government intervention in the economy promotes prosperity and stability.

Stu’s and the callers’ theories are viable prospects. “Vandalism + change”, upon examination, is a good candidate because Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership are promoting a policy that could be construed as vandalism ala Robin Hood; we all know that Obama’s central campaign theme has been that of “change”. By “spreading the wealth around” through higher taxation of anyone with an income over $250,000, and giving a “tax credit” to 95% of Americans, 40% of whom pay no income taxes at all, Obama / Robin Hood promises to steal (hence, vandalism) from the rich and give to the poor. Delving further into the vandalism theme, one could also say that these tax policies would cap or discourage the level of achievement to which business owners and workers would aspire, cause the loss of jobs when small businesses have to lay off workers to pay the higher taxes, slow down spending by the rich on goods and services made and performed by workers, and thereby wreck the economy. This would be a change, that’s for sure, and wrecking something is vandalism. Hence, change by vandalism.

The second viable intrepretation, change + socialism, would fit Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership’s proposed plans. Outright socialism would certainly be a change for America. Although many of these kinds of policies have been creeping into government by stealth for many years, there is a historical American antipathy for openly, unabashedly admitting that certain policies are socialist.

The third proposed intrepretation is “Keynesian”. The interventionist, tinkering policies employed to head off and lessen the Great Depression have continued to be used by degrees ever since the early 1930’s, are certainly already being used to deal with the “financial meltdown” and their expansion are being aggressively advocated by Washington leadership.

Perhaps it was Frank’s speech impediment. Perhaps he misspoke. Did he coin a new word? He probably meant “Keynesianism”. It’s unlikely a clarification will be called for, much less answered. In any case, “changeinism” is at least more entertaining. If we’re going to go down in flames as a country, it would be nice to at least have fun doing it, right?

Unfortunately, there is no misconstruing the remainder of his statement. The ridiculous policy measures Frank is proposing are exactly the wrong thing to do at this time. They come at a moment when the United States has for the first time in its history ecrued a $1 trillion deficit in one year. Because of the continuing massive overspending, the country’s creditors are considering downgrading the country’s credit rating. A number of nations are calling for “a new world order” and even one world currency.  Dangerous and unprecedented powers have been granted to the same administration officials whose Keynesian-style tinkering with the country’s financial system helped sew the sides of a financial meltdown. These powers were granted despite the vast majority of the public rising up in efforts to prevent it. In the legislative branch, the very same corrupt politicians who are not being called into account for their aggressive advocating and engineering of the very policies that led to the mortgage meltdown are now leading the way to “fix it”. There is now an astounding volume of money being churned off the printing presses to fund all of the bailouts and forced government purchases of shares in private banks. The unchecked flood of currency into the financial system can lead no where but to massive inflation, perhaps on levels found only in such places as Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic.

Yeah right, we really need a big dose of “changeinism” or a bigger dose of Keynesiam, as semi-defined by Barney Frank. But that doesn’t actually seem like change at all. Ironically, it’s a continuation and expansion of the abysmal failure of the current administration’s and Congressional leadership’s policies. Maybe that’s what changeinism really means. If Frank was attempting to contribute a new word the American political lexicon, perhaps it was the much-touted change hybrized with “continuism” and “expanison” to disguise the actually villified “more of the same”.