Frank Salvato — Emerging Corruption

When Did Honesty Become Optional?

February 18, 2012 By Frank Salvato Leave a Comment

Throughout time politicians and their handlers have been prone to omitting unpleasant facts or manipulating them so as to mold issues to their advantage. This is the concept behind “spin”; a form of propagandizing that crafts an “alternative” interpretation of an issue, organization, person, event or campaign in order to sway the public’s opinion “for” or “against” said issue, organization, person, event or campaign. In fact, the “art of spin” has created an entirely separate category of political animal; the “spin doctor,” many of whom are regularly featured on the many mainstream media news outlets disguised as “political strategists.” But somewhere along the line, the art of employing wit, reason, personality and persuasive rhetoric in order to achieve a political ends gave way to the blatant lie, and never before has it been as evident as it is today.

This political malady is not exclusive to one side of the aisle or the other. Neither is it exclusive to the elected class. In fact, some of the most egregious abusers of truth and honesty come in the form of agendized media operatives. It is an across-the-board problem that comes with the intellectual infections that are the “inside-the-beltway mentality” and the special interest mentality, both of which are shared by the elected class, the media who cover them and the special interest groups who try to sway them both.

In the Republican Primary Elections we have seen a good example of spin, and viciously so. In one of the most negative political cycles in recent times, we have witnessed each of the nominees unleash barrage after barrage of negative attacks ads against whomever they deem the threat of the day. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, although not as blatant about their approval of such tactics, are just as guilty of partaking in the art of spin; in stretching the truth to achieve an ideological goal, as Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. It can be argued that Mr. Romney is the biggest abuser, but I am sure that Romney supporters will spin that to their advantage.

But the Republican field’s negative campaigning and spinning of fellow candidates’ stances and records pales in comparison to the outright dishonesty that is coming from the Progressive Left, the media who supports them and the Obama Administration. Ironically, an unspoken penchant for decorum and civility kept the word “liar” – and the accusation of lying – from being employed just one short decade ago. Chronicling the genesis of this sad and reprehensible turn of events, one can point to the Progressive Left’s disingenuous assault of President George W. Bush with, “Bush Lied, Soldiers Died” as the moment it became acceptable to level the charge of “liar” against an elected official, never mind a sitting President. Although many may have thought it – and perhaps even known it – we, as a people, refrained from actually saying it.

Today, it doesn’t even garner an eyebrow-raise when the likes of US Rep. Maxine Waters (P-CA) calls Speaker of the House John Boehner or House Majority Leader Eric Cantor “liars.” Recently, the radically Progressive lawmaker went so far as to call the whole of the House Republican contingent “demons.” So much for the civility speech that President Obama gave after the shooting of US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona.

Three recent events serve as perfect examples – three articles of evidence, if you will – of how the Progressive Left has “fundamentally transformed” the art of spin to a campaign of dishonesty, and, again, simply for the retention of political power.

The first item comes in the form of a declaration by the Obama White House that Catholic Charities USA stood with Mr. Obama and Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in support of their plan to mandate that the insurance companies of religious institutions provide free “contraception coverage” for all employees.

According to FOX News, the organization that Media Matters and the Progressive Left love to hate:

“Catholic Charities USA has occasionally been cited as a supporter of the new policy, after the administration announced last week it would no longer require religious organizations to directly offer contraceptive coverage to workers. That’s almost certainly because the White House listed the group on an official blog that cited ‘praise from a wide range of individuals and organizations’ for the policy change…

“But the organization has since posted a clarification on its website, after that statement was interpreted by some as an endorsement.

“‘We have not endorsed the accommodation to the HHS mandate that was announced by the administration last Friday,’ the group said. Rather, the group said it would ‘unequivocally share the goal’ of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to ‘uphold religious liberty. Any representation to the contrary is false,’ Catholic Charities said.”

It is interesting to note how the Obama White House cherry-picked and abbreviated a quote by Catholic Charities USA to fit their narrative. Catholic Charities USA had issued a statement saying it welcomed, “the administration’s attempt to meet the concerns of the religious community” and that they were “hopeful that this is a step in the right direction.” That’s a far cry from an endorsement or even convoluted support.

Out of this same subject came another assault against honesty, this time at the hand of habitual spinner and a Progressive operative herculean in her ability to weave fiction out of any given issue, Rachel Maddow.

On her MSNBC program, speaking on the Obamacare contraception mandate issue, Maddow said:

“In these 28 states there’s already State law that requires employers – including in many cases employers associated with religious institutions – to provide health insurance that covers contraception. That is already the law of the land in these 28 States.

“There is a reason you have not been deafened by the cries of outrage over that policy in these 28 States. It’s because no one in the Republican Party decided that that sort of thing would be an outrage until now – until they could somehow try to use it against President Obama even though they never cared about it before.

“Actually eight of those States that require health insurance to cover contraception – in these eight States there’s not even an exemption for churches. That’s true of all these Godless places you see here, like Georgia and Iowa and Montana.

“So, in fact, the Obama Administration’s proposed new rule on health insurance, which says religious institutions like churches do not have to provide health insurance that covers contraception – those new rules from the Obama Administration would actually give churches a new exemption from that law that they’ve never had before. In eight States the Obama Administration rule would carve out more space for churches to evade the rules that everyone else has to operate by, on the basis of their religious beliefs…

“I, personally, along with many other people across this country, along with eight States across the country, think it is bizarre that there should be religious belief exemptions from having to follow laws like this, but the Obama Administration is willing to go there. Their rules will exempt churches, which eight states right now don’t even do.”

There is so much wrong with this statement one can hardly find a place to begin. So, we are thankful that the Media Research Center captured one of Ms. Maddow’s own MSNBC colleagues, Lawrence O’Donnell, debunking the blatant lie foisted on the American public by Ms. Maddow and her production team:

“Now you’ve heard many, many times in the last couple of days that there are now 28 States that have passed [measures] similar to the regulation in the Obama healthcare law and that all of that has suddenly become so controversial.

“You’ve also been told – and I’ve been told – repeatedly on television that eight of those States have absolutely no exemptions to the law. None. No religious exemptions at all. No way out for Catholic churches, Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals…their stuck. And I’ve got to tell you, when I heard it, every time I heard it, it just didn’t sound right to me. And whenever I hear people in Washington or New York say what’s happening out there in the States, in some State law, in a place where they’ve never been, I just don’t believe them, and you shouldn’t either.

“…we spent the day today studying the statutes in the eight States that everyone is saying provide absolutely no exception. The other twenty States, everyone agrees, provides bigger, more comfortable exemptions for the Catholic Church, including Massachusetts, which has falsely been reported as being identical to the provision inserted into the federal law. In all of those other twenty State laws there’s an exemption big enough for the White House to drive through.

“Let’s look then at the Georgia law, which you’ve been told and I’ve been told, repeatedly, has absolutely no exemptions and does have that astonishingly Liberal sounding prose introduction to it that I just read.

“The Georgia Law actually says, ‘This code section shall not be construed to require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract policy or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs’…And there is the huge exemption to the Georgia law. You are exempt from it if your policy simply does not provide for prescription drugs. And so all religious institutions have to do in Georgia to avoid the requirement to provide birth control pills is to just not provide any drug benefit in their policies….which is true about an awful lot of policies out there anyway.”

Refreshing to have an MSNBCer calling one of their own out on the carpet.

But perhaps the quintessential example of governmental and political dishonesty came in the form of a statement Obama Chief of Staff Jack Lew made during a taping of CNN’s State of the Union, defending the blatant and grotesquely partisan obstructionism of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid where passing a budget is concerned:

“Let’s be clear, what Senator Reid is talking about is a fairly narrow point. In order for the Senate to do its annual work on appropriation bills they need to pass a certain piece of legislation which sets a limit. They did that last year. That’s what he’s talking about. He’s not saying they shouldn’t pass a budget, but we also need to be honest, you can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without sixty votes and you can’t get sixty votes without bi-partisan support. So, unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.”

Of course, there is one major thing wrong with that statement: it doesn’t take 60 votes to pass a budget in the US Senate.

As The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler points out in The Fact Checker:

“Lew is completely wrong when he claims that 60 votes are needed to ‘pass a budget in the Senate.’ As he well knows, a budget resolution is one of the few things that are not subject to a filibuster. In fact, that is one reason why a bill based on reconciliation instructions cannot be filibustered.

“You don’t even need 50 votes, just a simple majority. Here are a few of the recent close votes for the budget resolution, as listed by CRS: 48-45 (2009 budget); 51-49 (2006); 51-50 (2004); 50-48 (2001). Senate Democrats may have reasons for failing to pass a budget plan — such as wanting to avoid casting politically inconvenient votes — but a GOP filibuster is not one of them.”

It needs to be noted here – for those who don’t know his prior positions in federal government – that Mr. Lew was not only the most recent budget director for President Obama; he was also the budget director for former President Bill Clinton. That said, it is impossible for him not to have known that it does not take sixty votes to pass a budget resolution in the US Senate.

In fact, Mr. Lew made the statement repeatedly that day, pointing to a concerted effort to move that political talking point into the mainstream so as to manipulate the truth and, thereby, manipulating the public’s perception of the issue. The bottom line here is that the President of the United States’ Chief of Staff went on several national media outlets professing an out-and-out lie in order to confuse and manipulate the American people; solely for political gain.

Joseph de Maistre, a key figure of the Counter-Enlightenment and defender of hierarchical societies and monarchical States, in opining against a democratic form of government, whether a Direct Democracy of a Constitutional Republic, such is the United States, is quoted as saying: “Every country has the government it deserves.” Given the pathetic performance of the American Electorate in not only turning out the vote but in abdicating our constitutional obligation of governmental oversight, I’d say Monsieur de Maistre was spot on.

We talk a lot today about how we must act to save our country. To be sure, this action is incredibly necessary. We the People have allowed government to fall into the hands of nefarious men and women; partisans and opportunists; men and women more loyal to their political parties than to their constituents. We have an opportunity to right this wrong by enlightening ourselves to the many truths of the matters, by educating ourselves on the philosophies of the Charters of Freedom and then engaging in the process of electoral decision making and properly discharging our constitutional duties to governmental oversight.

We can also go a long way to “getting back to good” by making honesty and truthfulness election year issues. If we accept dishonesty from our elected officials and do nothing to right that wrong, then Monsieur de Maistre was right, we have the government we deserve.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Commentary, Democrats, Elections, Liberals, Obama, Pelosi, Political Corruption, Politics, Socialism Tagged With: 2012 election, campaign, campaign promises, catholic charities, citizens, deception, Democrat, Elections, honesty, jack lew, lawrence o'donnell, liberal, lies, Obama, Obamacare, Politics, proggressive, rachel maddow, Republican, truth, voters

ShareThis

An ‘Axelrod-esque’ Moment for Gingrich

January 20, 2012 By Frank Salvato 2 Comments

Almost on the eve of the South Carolina GOP Primary, ABC News is set to televise an interview with Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, where she claims the presidential contender asked her for an “open marriage” so that he could see the woman that would become his third wife, Callista. Truth be told, this is a re-hashed interview, the original having run in Esquire Magazine in 2010. Which leaves us this to consider: the execution and airing of this interview is either an attempt by a woman scorned to even the score, a politically motivated hit-piece, or both. Whichever it turns out to be, the one thing it won’t be is a game changer.

That Newt Gingrich has had marital issues in his past is common knowledge. Anyone shocked by this news should not consider themselves well-informed. Anyone offended by the marital transgressions of his past should heed the words from a follow-up Esquire Magazine article:

“…Love makes fools of us all, etc., and liberals who believe in parole and rehabilitation really should think at least once before they snicker at the religious folks who have decided to believe in Newt’s remorse for his past behavior.”

In a recent article titled, Political Baggage: Establishment & Media Manipulation, in which I wrote about Mr. Gingrich’s infidelity issues, juxtaposing them to the sexual peccadilloes of myriad Democrat and Progressive politicians, I argued:

“In an age when the world is being enveloped in darkness – both ideologically and violently; when our country stands on the brink of deteriorating from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy; when government has grown into such a behemoth that it is on the precipice of being the master to the very people who created it, We the People had better look beyond the imperfections of the personal man where “political viability” and “electability” are concerned.

“Today, as we advance in the 2012 election cycle, We the People need the smartest man in the room at the helm of the Ship of State. We need someone who has humility enough to learn from past errors, correcting course when it is the best choice to make, leading our nation in this tumultuous time. We need someone who understands and respects the knowledge that only history can afford as we – as a nation; as the guardians of liberty – navigate the future.

“What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his ‘baggage’ is too heavy to carry.”

These words are worth repeating in light of the Marianne Gingrich interview.

What is interesting about this moment in time is the timing. This interview – and remember, it is a recycled item from a 2010 Esquire Magazine interview – was manufactured, produced and “in the can” for use by ABC News for whenever they chose. In fact, the Drudge Report had initially reported that there was a “civil war” among the ABC News hierarchy over whether to run the segments before or after the South Carolina GOP Primary. In the end, they decided to schedule the segments to air on the eve of the primary, a contest in which Mr. Gingrich’s campaign is seeing some mounting momentum. As of this writing, Rasmussen Reports has Mr. Gingrich taking the lead over national frontrunner Mitt Romney. It would seem that just as Mr. Gingrich was experiencing some reward from his efforts in South Carolina, just by coincidence ABC News thought it so very important to “break” an old story.

Interesting…interesting, indeed…

In a November 11, 2009, article in Human Events, Ann Coulter wrote about a disturbing penchant possessed by one David Axelrod, now a senior advisor to the Obama 2012 re-election effort. It seems Mr. Axelrod, an old Chicago Democrat newspaper man, has a fondness for advancing stories about sexual indiscretions – both real and not – about opposition candidates.

Ms. Coulter writes:

“…the only reason Obama became a US senator – allowing him to run for president – is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama’s Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama’s Republican opponent.

“One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the US Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

“But then The Chicago Tribune – where Axelrod used to work – began publishing claims that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

“From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a ‘wife beater.’ He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

“Hull’s substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

“Luckily for Axelrod, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

“The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan…”

Now, I’m not claiming that David Axelrod is behind the coincidental airing of a potentially damaging interview by a GOP candidate’s ex-wife, but when all signs point to “he did it” who am I to argue?

But why would Axelrod, the quintessential poster boy for disingenuous sleaze politics, want to attack Gingrich? Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and the rest of Obama’s Progressive operatives are certain that Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP candidate in the fall. Why would they want to destroy Gingrich? Simple: They are pushing for Romney because they believe he will be easier to beat.

Defendable or not, in Romney, as the candidate, Obamacare would have to be off the table due to the similarities between the insurance mandate currently in place in Massachusetts and Mr. Obama’s signature socialized health insurance legislation; the Massachusetts mandate instituted under Mr. Romney’s watch. Mr. Romney is vulnerable on his financial history and on many of the positions he took in the past while an elected official. Axelrod also feels that Mr. Romney’s debating style is one that would pale in comparison to Mr. Obama’s. So, in an effort to misdirect – a favorite tactic of the Progressive Left – Mr. Axelrod, Ms. Jarrett and the rest of the non-transparent Obama team float the falsehood that they believe they will run against Mr. Romney in the fall. The media is falling for it – or at least complicit in the canard, and, therefore, the mass of the “I’m too busy and too important to do my own homework on the issues and the candidates” populace drinks the Kool-Aid.

In Mr. Gingrich, Axelrod fears a slaughter in the debates. Even a half-awake second-grader would be able to tell you, with confidence, that Newt Gingrich would have Barack Obama weeping and in the fetal position behind the podium after the first ten minutes of the first debate. In fact, I believe that if Mr. Gingrich does win the GOP nomination, Mr. Obama will be counseled to opt out of any and all debates with Mr. Gingrich. Honestly, if he chooses to debate, we will all understand that Mr. Obama has become a victim of his own media manufactured persona.

Mr. Axelrod also fears a Gingrich nomination for the fact that Mr. Gingrich – even though some of his brethren Conservatives and Republicans try to make the case against his Conservative credentials – has a record of accomplishment in the face of partisan adversity.

As Speaker of the House alone, he presided over:

▪ The successful negotiation of four consecutive balanced budgets with federal spending held to an average of 2.9 percent per year, the slowest growth rate since the early 1950s.

▪ A negotiated Capital Gains Tax cut that saw the investments by the “dreaded venture capitalists” explode by 500 percent, allowing for the creation of over 11 million new jobs through the execution of non-governmentally interfered with Capitalism.

▪ A negotiated bi-partisan Welfare Reform Act that saw child poverty drop by nearly a quarter, child poverty in single-parent households reaching an all-time low and nearly two-thirds all those who left the welfare rolls gainfully employed.

And the most important…

▪ Over $400 billion of US national debt paid down during the years he presided over a Congress that produced balanced budgets.

By contrast, Mr. Obama has given the country a trillion dollar stimulus that turned out to be a golden goose for green energy giveaways and election grease for his union benefactors and “thugtarians,” Obamacare, Congressional gridlock, a diminished stature in the world, $4.6 trillion in new debt and a country so bitterly divided that one is moved to vomit when viewing his speeches about being a “uniter and not a divider.”

So, I will watch the interview with Marianne Gingrich with a skeptical eye, not that I disbelieve her story. As I said before, if you are shocked by the news of Newt Gingrich’s marital issues who are grossly unaware. No, I will be skeptical as to the catalyst for the timing of the interview; for the motives of the interview. And all the while I will try – very hard – not to see David Axelrod’s fingerprints all over it.

As for Mr. Gingrich and the election, my belief remains:

“What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his ‘baggage’ is too heavy to carry.”

For that matter, I’m not going to let a mealy-mouth Progressive smear-merchant like David Axelrod talk me out of voting for anyone who stands opposed to Barack Obama.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Commentary, Elections, Political Corruption, Politics, Socialism, Socialism Tagged With: 2012 election, axelrod, chicago politics, debates, Democrat, Gingrich, Obama, Politics, primaries, progressive, Republican, smear

ShareThis

Raiding of the Treasury to Bribe the Irresponsible

January 13, 2012 By Frank Salvato 1 Comment

A little publicized political story, if played out to the satisfaction of California Democrats (read: Progressives), would not only set the stage for a politically motivated raid on the US Treasury, it would afford President Obama, his administration and political operatives plausible deniability in any “coincidental” benefit to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. And if you don’t think that has David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe salivating, you haven’t been paying attention for the past three years.

According to a report by TheHill.com:

“A long list of California Democrats is urging President Obama to name a new housing regulator using a controversial recess appointment.

“In a letter to the president, more than two dozen House members said the temporary head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Edward DeMarco, simply hasn’t done enough to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. The lawmakers are pushing the president to name a permanent director ‘immediately.’

“‘FHFA has consistently and erroneously interpreted its mandate far too narrowly and as such has failed to take adequate action to help homeowners,’ the lawmakers wrote. ‘Installing a permanent director of the FHFA will allow the FHFA to move forward to make key decisions that will help keep families in their homes and improve our economy.’”

Okay, let’s first examine the FHFA. According to their website:

“The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) was created on July 30, 2008, when the President signed into law the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The Act gave FHFA the authorities necessary to oversee vital components of our country’s secondary mortgage markets – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks…FHFA’s mission is to provide effective supervision, regulation and housing mission oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to promote their safety and soundness, support housing finance and affordable housing, and support a stable and liquid mortgage market…”

The reason the California congressional delegation is pushing for a permanent replacement for Mr. DeMarco has little to do with the well-being of California’s citizens whose mortgages are both underwater or in foreclosure. It has everything to do with 2012 being an election year. The California delegation’s letter to President Obama urging the so-called “recess appointment” of a new FHFA director presents as a gift to the Obama re-election effort. I say “so-called recess appointment” because the US Senate is in pro-forma session and it is unconstitutional for the president to make recess appointments when either house of Congress is in session. I and the rest of the Conservative and Republican rank-and-file are still waiting for congressional Republicans to do something about the initial round of “recess appointments.” Of course, one needs a spine to stand-up to a bully, so we probably shouldn’t hold our collective breath.

I say that the letter presented to the President and his team is a gift because it is a win-win situation that indirectly provides enormous benefit to his re-election campaign.

Should Mr. Obama make an unconstitutional recess appointment to fill the FHFA directorship, the director would be able to take action, almost immediately, to mandate the re-negotiation of any and/or all of the mortgages held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. That mandate could literally include the forgiveness of sizable portions of monies due to those organizations by mortgage holders who are either underwater, on the bubble of foreclosure or both. This is, effectively, an exercise in debt forgiveness…without the tax liability for the borrower.

Debt forgiveness, by definition, is:

“…a reduction in loan value where a loan is discounted from its original principal or charged off as a bad debt…Under IRS rules [the amount of the reduction] is reportable as income to the borrower for loans discounted or charged off.”

Because this move by the FHFA would be recognized as a mandated re-negotiation of the loan, the borrower wouldn’t be subjected to the IRS rules pertaining to debt forgiveness. That leaves this question: How would Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks recoup the monies lost in mortgage re-negotiations? If you answered, “from the federal government” or “from the US taxpayers,” give yourself a gold star. The mandated re-negotiated mortgages would literally facilitate a raid on the US Treasury by the Obama Administration under the guise of affordable housing and the “correcting” of the mortgage industry.

Now, here’s the part that makes David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe drool.

Being the narcissistic political opportunist that Barack Obama has demonstrated himself to be, any of the so-called “political strategist” talking heads seen blathering on nightly on your cable news channel of choice could tell you that as soon as the first reduced mortgage bills are sent to the “rescued” (read: bailed-out, or, better yet, bribed) voters…er, excuse me, borrowers, Mr. Obama will be on television, radio, in print and on the Internet trumpeting how his administration “saved” or “thwarted the foreclosure of” hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of family homes.

I can hear it now:

“This morning, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, initiated a plan to save the homes of millions of Americans who were tricked, deceived or otherwise forced into signing on to home mortgages unfairly by the greed merchants of the Wall Street One-Percent. Exacting social justice on these filthy Capitalists, the FHFA director has ordered the heads of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to renegotiate any and all home mortgages that are either underwater or on the brink of foreclosure. While I had nothing to do directly with this decision, I did, in my infinite wisdom, appoint the director and, therefore, am due your support in my bid for re-election to the presidency of the United States. Thank you very much and goodnight. Be sure to tip your bartenders and waitresses on your way out. They work hard. You’ve been great.”

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, a Scottish lawyer, writer and Professor of Universal History, and Greek & Roman Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh, is quoted as saying:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship…”

To clarify, the United States of America is not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic with a democratic electoral system, that understood, Tytler’s axiom still holds true. Once the voting public realizes that they can elect pillagers to office who have no problem achieving full political cowardice in their sycophancy to special interest voting blocs, the gates to the Treasury are no longer secure and the Republic is doomed.

It is for this reason that two events simply must take place.

First, congressional Republican leadership must – immediately – cease being the gaggle of spineless political geldings that they have been since Mr. Obama took office. They must challenge, in every way, shape and form the unconstitutional (read: illegal) recess appointment of Richard Cordray atop the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Mr. Obama’s recent appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. This opposition should include consideration of a radical move: organizing a congressional walk-out, ala the tactics of the Democrat lawmakers in Wisconsin and Indiana, who brought those state legislatures to a halt over the legitimate limitations imposed on public-sector labor unions in those states by the duly elected.

And second, Republicans simply must become more aggressive with branding issues, with messaging. This would be a perfect opportunity to get ahead of the message; to frame the issue before the Progressive “history re-writing machine” gets a chance to sell the American public a bill of goods that is fundamentally Socialist in nature (redistribution of wealth is a Socialist tool to placate the masses). Sadly, if the same message wizards in the GOP hierarchy execute their status quo they will once again find themselves on the defensive and operating from a disadvantaged position, just as with the tax-cut extension issue, the deficit issue, the entitlement reform issues, the budget issue, etc.

Should the Republican leadership – both in Congress and at the RNC – refuse to take this battle on with the intention of winning without compromise, we can all be sure that Mr. Obama and his team of Progressive anti-Capitalists will “fundamentally transform” the raiding of the US Treasury – disguised as an affordable housing initiative – into a dedicated voting bloc come November 2012. If the Republican leadership – both elected and at the Party level – allow this to happen then the subsequent demise of the Republic becomes the GOP’s legacy to the human race.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Commentary, Corruption, Democrats, Elections, Political Corruption, Politics Tagged With: 2012 election, affordable housing, chicago politics, Fannie Mae, fhfa, Freddie Mac, Housing, mortgages, Obama, progressive, voters, votes

ShareThis

Promises, Promises: The Reality of Campaign Speak

January 7, 2012 By Frank Salvato Leave a Comment

As the campaign cycle progresses we are going to hear a lot about what one candidate or another is going to do about this or that. We will, to the point of weariness, be inundated with campaign promise after campaign promise, albeit, between gratuitous attacks, both political and personal. This is politicking and the American electorate – for better or for worse – has come to accept a certain amount of it from the people in the political class. But expecting grandiose pledges and believing in the unattainable, well, those are two different things. It is the truly foolish who believe half of what a political candidate says he can deliver, and the blame for that foolishness must fall on the shoulders of the individual voter.

While Presidents sign legislation into law, it is Congress – the House and the Senate; the Legislative Branch – that actually crafts and passes legislation. Therefore, any promise made on the campaign trail by a presidential candidate, be it by the incumbent or the challenger (or the field of candidates vying to be the challenger), is subject to the debate and acquiescence of those in the Legislative Branch; in Congress. It is because of this that any promise made by a presidential candidate must be received by the voting public as more of an intention, rather than a promise. To accept a campaign promise as an impending reality is to set oneself up for almost certain disappointment. And to blame a successful candidate for not living up to those campaign promises requires a level of certainty that the promise was actually ignored, not thwarted.

A good example of campaign promises thwarted comes in the form of the Republican TEA Party supported congressional freshman class who, during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, promised to “repeal or defund Obamacare” and to “bring fiscal responsibility to Washington.” Each of those elected sincerely believed that they would be able to succeed in doing what they promised. In fact, HR2 of the 112th Congress did, in fact, attempt to repeal Obamacare and many of the TEA Party supported members of the House took it straight on the chin during the debt, deficit and budget debates. But for all of their good intentions and actions, the freshmen Republicans of the 112th Congress learned that unless you have a veto-proof majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a friendly inhabitant in the White House, absolutes in campaign promises do not exist.

The same must be said about the Executive Branch and the President of the United States, although he has some additional quivers in his pouch where getting his way is concerned: the bully pulpit (self-explanatory) and the Executive Order.

About.com’s US Politics pages say this about Executive Orders:

“Executive Orders (EOs) are official documents, numbered consecutively, by which the President of the US manages the operations of the Federal Government.

“Since 1789, US presidents (“the executive”) have issued directives that are now known as Executive Orders. These are legally binding directives to federal administrative agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials as their agencies implement congressionally-established law. However, Executive Orders may be controversial if the President is acting counter to real or perceived legislative intent…

“Presidents have been accused of using the power of the Executive Order to make, not merely implement, policy. This is controversial, as it subverts the Separation of Powers as outlined in the Constitution.”

Some accurate examples of a President transgressing the Separation of Powers via Executive Oder have been provided by the Obama Administration in the form of:

The EPA: Functioning under the authority of the Executive, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has enacted regulations that serve, effectively, as legislation, so much so that many members of Congress – from both parties, sans the Progressive contingent of the Democrat Party – have sought to craft legislation to forbid the agency from enforcing said regulations. Additionally, the EPA, again, under the authority of the Executive, is questing to expand its power “to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of ‘sustainable development’”; to make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues. Under agency chief Lisa Jackson, the EPA targets broadening its focus to include both “social” and “economic,” as well as environmental “pillars” to its mission and authority.

The NLRB: Again, functioning under the authority of the Executive, albeit at an arm’s length – thus providing plausible deniability to the Oval Office, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has, under the Obama Administration, routinely championed labor unions over private sector corporations and businesses, i.e. the job creators. Even as the hierarchy of the Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) that is General Motors discussesexporting the manufacturing of the Chevy Volt to China, so as to avoid the high cost of domestic manufacturing (thank you labor unions), the NLRB has moved forward with regulations that mandate unprecedented facilitation to labor unions in non-union shops so as to organize and hold organizational votes; votes that jettison the sanctity of the secret ballot.

The Recess Appointment: Although recess appointments are commonplace in presidential politics, the recess appointments made thus far during the Obama Administration have been to entities that champion a Progressive social engineering of the country and to fill vacancies on boards and agency chairs that have been contested by a significant number in the US Senate. A perfect example comes in the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an entity created of the infamous Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill and which is being actively contested by Republicans in both the House and the Senate. This recess appointment followed, in rapid-fire succession, by three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, thus facilitating that entities ability to execute its labor-friendly special interest agenda in the run-up to the 2012 General Elections.

It should be noted here that all four of the recess appointments mentioned should be challenged in court – that is if the Republican leadership in Congress can dislodge their heads from their rectums – on the basis of constitutionality as recess appointments cannot be made while Congress is in session. The Senate is in pro-forma session.

Further, when the cancer of social engineering is at the root of an empirical presidency – as is the case with the Obama Administration, the rights of some are manipulated in a quest to “correct” a perceived wrong affecting others.

A perfect example of one voter demographic’s rights being manipulated or denied in deference to another’s comes at the hand of Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

Starting with the DoJ’s refusal to prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, two New Black Panther Party members who executed gross and egregious voter intimidation during the 2008 election cycle outside a Philadelphia polling place, to the DoJ’s lawsuit targeting the State of Arizona for daring to attempt the securing of its borders, to the DoJ’s politically opportunistic denial of State Voter ID laws under the guise of an adherence to “civil rights,” the US Department of Justice exists as an entity that obliterates the notion of “justice for all,” instead affecting justice to some over others, predicated on skin color, sexual preference or allegiance to foreign entities hostile to the United States.

Governing unilaterally, such as with the examples above, executes an empirical presidency and, in most cases, usurps the Separation of Powers needed to maintain the checks and balances established by our Founders and Framers in the three co-equal branches of our Constitutional Republic.

So, as is evidenced, the promises made by those running for office – whether they are running for POTUS, Congress or the many State, County and local seats of power – can either be thwarted by opposition or rendered unrealistic by the law. Further, in a quest to keep campaign promises made to those who want more than good government in return, some candidates may consent to nefarious, and in some cases unconstitutional, means by which to satisfy their commitments to these ideological benefactors, their base voting blocs or both.

Because of these realities, we must understand that while politicos might say things we would like to hear on the campaign stump, we – you and I, both – must be more deliberative in our decision making before we pledge our support; before we dedicate our most precious of constitutional rights – our vote, to any one man of woman seeking political office; to any politician seeking to represent you and I in elected office.

It is our constitutional duty – by right of citizenship – to take the time to research the deeds of each of the candidates; their records, dispensing with the ever-placating rhetorical commitments packaged with the precursor, “when I become president of the United States.” Most often a campaign trail promise and $16.00 will buy you a $16.00 government purchased muffin.

When a candidate says that he is going to “repeal Obamacare,” ask the question “How?” Make them explain to you the process by which they will affect satisfaction of that promise.

When a candidate says that his experience will afford him the wherewithal to “create jobs,” ask him how he will cajole Congress into passing legislation that will free the private sector of burdensome legal constraints, or how he will pressure the labor unions into accepting reasonable restrictions on their greed.

And when a candidate says he will not “allow Iran to become nuclear capable,” ask him how, exactly, they intend to utilize the full force of the office of President of the United States to affect that reality. Will he seek a Declaration of War from Congress, a feat which has eluded every president elected during a time of military action since World War II? Or will he allow Congress to once again – and in cowardly and political opportune fashion – abdicate its responsibility to define the mission for our brave men and women in uniform?

Asking the rough and tough questions and demanding no-nonsense, direct and real answers from candidates for public office is how We the People can defend the US Constitution from those who believe it is a “fundamentally flawed document.”

It is well past time that we expect detailed information and definitions about solutions and agendas from those running for office. It is also well past time that we refuse to accept as truth the pre-packaged, agendized, bumper-sticker sound-bite, oratorical vomit that passes for media coverage of political campaigns by the mainstream media.

Ask questions and demand real, substantive and detailed answers before vocalizing your support for any candidate. To paraphrase the unwashed masses from all of the labor union protests and “Occupy” rallies: This is what defending the Constitution looks like.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy and the threats of Islamic jihadism and Progressive neo-Marxism. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of theInternational Analyst Network and has been a featured guest on al Jazeera’s Listening Post and on Russia Today. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and was featured in the documentary, “Ezekiel and the MidEast ‘Piece’ Process: Israel’s Neighbor States.” He is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain’s America Radio Show, nationally syndicated by the Genesis and Phoenix Broadcasting Networks, catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. Mr. Salvato is also heard weekly on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the IRN-USA Radio Network. Mr.Salvato has been interviewed on Radio Belgrade One. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, and are syndicated nationally. He is a featured political writer forEducationNews.org, BigGovernment.com and Examiner.com and is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Big Government, Commentary, Democrats, Elections, Local Politics, National, Politics, Voter Fraud

ShareThis

So, What Actually Came of the ‘Shellacking’ of 2010?

December 30, 2011 By Frank Salvato

We were so full of “hope” for “change.” No, I am not talking about the election of Barack Obama, one of the most effective Progressive presidents in American history. I am speaking of the excitement felt within the Conservative, Libertarian and Center Right and Left political communities after the 2010 election delivered the House and a non-filibuster proof Senate to the American people. Finally, most of us thought, some balance in the federal government. Maybe, just maybe, the Progressives and Liberal Democrats in federal government would be forced to the ingenuous table of true and honest compromise; compromise fitting of a truly free people. But, as we look back over the year, what did we really get for all that so-called “compromise?”

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – over two years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

Of this, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, wrote:

“As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan – in open defiance of the law and the public they serve. Senate Majority Leader Reid said it would be ‘foolish’ to have a budget…This is the second consecutive year Senate Democrats have disregarded the legally mandated budget process.”

They went on to call Reid’s obstructionist tactics “a national disgrace,” and they couldn’t be more correct.

Debt & Deficit
On this date back in 2008, as we were approaching the catastrophe that would be the “historic election” of someone who was, arguably, the most ill-prepared person in the history of our nation to the presidency of the United States, the US National Debt stood at approximately $10.7 trillion. Our federal budget deficit was at almost $500 billion and our Gross Debt to GDP Ratio was at 75.361 percent. We weren’t in the greatest financial shape and the horizon had some ominous clouds heading our way in the form of a mortgage meltdown that led to a significant recession, which led to a financial markets crisis, all of which put the world – the entire world – on the brink of financial calamity.

Today, three years later, President Obama and his financial gurus – otherwise known as the Manson Family of financial ineptitude – tell us we are “on the mend,” we have “turned the corner,” – even as unemployment remains around 9 percent on average, but that there is “a lot more work to do” and that we should allow him four more years to complete his work toward righting the ship of state – or, as the aware see all too well, his “transformation of the United States of America.” But what have his efforts achieved?

As it stands today, the US National Debt is $15.1trillion. Our federal budget deficit is $1.3 trillion and our Gross Debt to GDP Ratio is 100.480 percent. An even more relevant number – in light of all the “fixing” that Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have been doing – is the US Unfunded Liabilities, you know, the total the government is committed to paying out for all those nanny state entitlements, including Medicare, Social Security, Prescription Drug Benefits and, now, Obamacare. The Unfunded Liabilities held by the US federal government is a stunning $117.011 trillion. I’m going to write the full number out so you can see it, accurate to extent that the lower numbers are rolling so incredibly fast I can only be relevant to the billions digits: $117,011,381,000,000 and climbing.

On Tuesday it was announced that President Obama will ask for a third increase of the debt ceiling limit this year, raising that limit to $16.394 trillion.

Boards, Agencies & Departments
With the seating of the 112th Congress, we all held the hope that some of the more activist federal boards, agencies and departments would at least have their funding scrutinized and perhaps adjusted so that the Progressive activists and special interest cronies seated to their leadership would be restrained from ruling roughshod over the American private sector through President Obama’s favorite tool: legislation via regulation. But that financial leash failed to appear.

The Boeing Corporation felt the sting of the National Labor Relations Board when it fell victim to a labor union friendly lawsuit, filed by the NLRB, which sought to interfere with the construction of a new plant in South Carolina; a plant that promises to create thousands of new jobs. The lawsuit was later dropped only because Boeing, in juxtaposition to what was a sound financial business decision to move to a right-to-work State (South Carolina) from a State that rolled over to union largess (Washington), acquiesced to keeping the Washington plant open.

Striking fear and promoting uncertainty in the American business community – you know, the sector that actually creates jobs – the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to “expand” its authority and reach, transforming the EPA into what its administrator, Lisa Jackson, says will be an agency that is more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues, broadening “its focus” – or regulatory reach – to include both social and economic as well as environmental “pillars.”

The vehicle for this transformation comes in the form of a $700,000 study the agency commissioned last year from the National Academies of Science. Its aim: how to use existing laws to new ends.

The EPA announced on December 21st, new national standards to cut air pollutants from power plants, a regulation that will force older facilities to close – costing thousands of people their jobs, or clean up – costing consumers more in passed on costs.

The Department of Health & Human Services, under Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, disregarding the fact that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) is set to be heard for its constitutionality by the US Supreme Court later this year, has moved forward with its implementation of the entitlement program. In HHS’s implementation, Sec. Sebelius has issued over 1,800 waivers to the health insurance law, mostly to Progressive and labor union friendly businesses

HHS did, however, thwart the plans of another agency, the Food & Drug Administration, to lift a controversial age limit and make Plan B One-Step – or “the morning after pill,” the nation’s first over-the-counter emergency contraceptive, available for purchase by people of any age without a prescription.

Foreign Policy
And while there was hope that controlling the purse strings in Washington would affect Mr. Obama’s dismal foreign policy record by, perhaps, scrutinizing the funding of myriad UN agency programs enveloped in graft and corruption; by questioning the allocation of funds by USAID to pro-Islamist entities in the Middle East; and by examining the distribution of foreign aid to countries, including China, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy agenda has been left unscathed, for the most part.

And we see the fruits of Mr. Obama’s global handiwork across the globe.

In the reckless pursuit of “hope and change,” international style, the pro-democracy agenda, started administrations ago, was given a dose of steroids, only to see leader after leader in the Middle East and North Africa toppled, replaced by fundamentalist – and in some cases violent – Islamist factions. In location after location, from Egypt to Libya, from Syria to Tunisia, we are witnessing the rise of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda sympathetic factions to the seats of power, threatening a regional war for influence between the Sunni and the Shi’ite; the Shi’ites championed by an about-to-be nuclear capable Iran, another nefarious facilitation labeled an “accomplishment.”

And while it is true that US Navy Seal Team VI took out “Geronimo” – albeit not a stone’s throw away from Pakistan’s “West Point,” it can hardly be attributed to the “extended open hand of peace” that Mr. Obama said US foreign policy in the Middle East would be under his administration. Conversely, it was the continuation and, even, the escalation of former President George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” strategies that found Osama bin Laden with an extra hole in his head.

But, perhaps the biggest foreign policy disappointment – and one where Congress held significant influence to affect a positive outcome – was in the Obama Administration’s refusal to confront China on its currency manipulation.

The Washington Times reports:

“The Obama administration said Tuesday that China is making headway on its currency-valuation policies and should not be deemed a currency manipulator — fighting back against top Senate Democrats who had demanded President Obama sanction the US’s top economic competitor…

“Earlier this fall, the Democrat-led Senate passed a bill that would push the administration to declare China a currency manipulator, which would trigger automatic penalties…

“[The] Republican-led House bottled the bill up, saying it wanted to see the White House take a position. The administration has been reticent to do that, saying it feared action would spark a trade war.

“Tuesday’s report, released while Mr. Obama is vacationing in Hawaii, signals the administration has not changed its attitude and likely means the China-currency legislation is moribund in Congress.”

China owns the United States and Mr. Obama ducks the issue…he’s on vacation, don’t you know…as is Congress.

So, as 2011 winds down, a year that began with so much promise for the reform of a runaway federal government; that started with enthusiasm – at least among the freshmen TEA Party class – to affect real and meaningful change for the American people and change that would see the marginalization of the anti-American despotism exhibited by Progressives elected under the Democrat banner, what did we actually receive from our elected officials in Washington? No budget; no meaningful deficit or debt reduction and, in fact, increased debt and spending; boards, agencies and departments expanding the authority and reach of government; and a foreign policy that sees fundamentalist Islamists taking control of the Middle East and North Africa, and China getting away with currency manipulation even as they continue to receive foreign aid for their biggest debtor; the United States government.

Maybe 2012 will be different…maybe not…all I know is this: for all the compromising and deal making, for all the speeches, rhetoric and congratulations, We the People are in the very same position we were in prior to the 2010 election…and it’s pathetic.

And the debt clock keeps ticking…as does the nuclear clock in the Middle East…as does the encroachment of government into our lives…

Filed Under: 2010 Elections, 2012 Elections, Big Government, Commentary, Congress, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Money, Obama, Politics, Socialism, Socialism, Taxes, Tea Party, Uncategorized, Unions Tagged With: 111th congress, 112th congress, budget, China, Congress, Debt, Deficit, government, Harry Reid, Islam, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Obamacare, Politics, progressive, Taxes, Terrorism

ShareThis

Political Baggage: Establishment & Media Manipulation

November 18, 2011 By Frank Salvato Leave a Comment

As the 2012 Election primary seasons begins to ratchet-up, we had all better get ready for a onslaught of talk about “political baggage.” Whether it’s Mitt Romney’s “Louis Vuitton baggage” of having hired illegal aliens to manicure his lawn or Rick Perry’s “Cabela baggage” of having not painted over a racial epitaph on a rock outside a family hunting lodge or the “Bebe baggage” leveled at Herman Cain in the form of as of yet unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct against disgruntled, Democrat operative represented, former employees, the political baggage angle is one that has toppled solid political candidates in the past and, if left unaddressed, will topple solid Republican candidates in the 2012 election.

As with all political baggage, there is always some truth to the matter. Mitt Romney’s landscaping company did, in fact, break the law by hiring illegals to work on their crews. Gov. Romney, after warning the company that he could no longer employ their services should they continue the practice, terminated their services when it was found that they continued to employ illegals. And while it may have been true at one time that a rock outside of a family hunting lodge owned by Gov. Perry’s family did offer-up a racial insensitivity, the offending label was painted over years ago. And Mr. Cain? Well, to date no substantial evidence has surfaced but for a Gloria Allred represented repeat complaint filer’s word…you make that call.

The constant in each of these instances is a bloodthirsty media all too anxious to bring to trial in the court of public opinion those who possess an alternate political philosophy, regardless of fact or evidence. Today, unless you live in the squalid “utopia” that is an #Occupy encampment, it is universally recognized that but for a very few mainstream news media outlets the global community of journalists – and I use the word “journalist” for lack of a better term, although propagandist would be more appropriate – leans so far Left that they have to crane their necks just to see where Ché Guevara once stood. That acknowledged, these “journalists” target Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and all others of a non-Progressive (read: neo-Marxist) bent. And one of their favorite tools is being able to define the “electability” of candidates.

Just like I continue to scratch my head over why the National Republican Party allows Blue States to influence the Republican primary field in the early goings, I am equally as perplexed as to why anyone voting in a Republican Primary Election would listen to anyone in the mainstream media regarding the “viability” or “electability” of a candidate, especially where the idea of “baggage” is concerned.

A perfect example of why we shouldn’t place any value in the judgment of those in the mainstream media – and I am talking about anyone with a show and include anyone who places the title “strategist” behind their name – where political viability is concerned comes in the form of Newt Gingrich’s media/pundit/strategist perceived “baggage.”

Speaker Gingrich’s baggage comes in the form of something all too common in the United States today: infidelity and divorce. The infidelity and divorce, in and of themselves, are not the baggage. If both were to be considered political liabilities tumbleweeds would be rolling down every street in Washington, DC, and the many State Capitols. No, Speaker Gingrich’s baggage comes in the form of a grossly inaccurate portrayal of the circumstances surrounding those events in his life, beginning with the media’s version of a singular visit with his ex-wife in a hospital so many years ago.

In the media version, Mr. Gingrich is an evil, contemptible man, as is illustrated by this piece of propaganda from Salon.com writer Joan Walsh:

“Gingrich is probably best known for serving his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery, so he could marry his mistress, whom he later divorced to marry a staffer. But he’s also probably the only politician, who when you’re asked ‘What’s the worst thing he’s done?’ has done a lot of things that rival leaving his cancer-stricken wife for his mistress.”

As Mr. Gingrich’s own daughter from that ill-fated marriage, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, testifies in a recent article:

“My mother, Jackie Battley Gingrich, is very much alive, and often spends time with my family.

“As for my parents’ divorce, I can remember when they told me. It was the spring of 1980. I was 13 years old, and we were about to leave Fairfax, Va., and drive to Carrollton, Ga., for the summer. My parents told my sister and me that they were getting a divorce as our family of four sat around the kitchen table of our ranch home. Soon afterward, my mom, sister and I got into our light-blue Chevrolet Impala and drove back to Carrollton.

“Later that summer, Mom went to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta for surgery to remove a tumor. While she was there, Dad took my sister and me to see her. It is this visit that has turned into the infamous hospital visit about which many untruths have been told. I won’t repeat them. You can look them up online if you are interested in untruths. But here’s what happened:

“My mother and father were already in the process of getting a divorce, which she requested. Dad took my sister and me to the hospital to see our mother. She had undergone surgery the day before to remove a tumor. The tumor was benign.”

Two very different stories to say the least.

And while marital infidelity is a painful issue for spouses to confront, in many instances leading to divorce and the destruction of the family, inevitably it is an issue for spouses and, if one believes, their God. In Speaker Gingrich’s case, infidelity led to divorce; a divorce which both parties believed to be best for themselves and their children.

As for Speaker Gingrich’s moral burden to bear regarding this issue, he said of his past indiscretions in a March, 2011 interview:

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate…When I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics…I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them…[In the end I] felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness – not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness.”

Tawdry, perhaps even distasteful; certainly a lapse in ethical judgment. But where “political baggage” is concerned, these personal issues are pre-minor league compared to the threshold of acceptability established by the very mainstream media propagandists who condemn Speaker Gingrich for his transgressions.

In 1998 President Bill Clinton and a 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky engaged in a prolonged and deviant extra-marital affair that took place, primarily, in the Oval Office of the White House. The sexual encounters included the President taking calls from Congressman while receiving oral sex from Ms. Lewinski and an account of his inserting his cigar in Ms. Lewinsky’s vagina. Of the nine instances to which the offending parties admit took place, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton was present in the White House for at least some portion of five. The news of this extra-marital affair and the resulting investigation eventually led to the impeachment of President Clinton in 1998 by the US House of Representatives.

And while President Clinton’s marital infidelities were morally egregious – and while they presented an insult to the American electorate in their having taken place in the Oval Office – the mainstream media chose to defend Mr. Clinton; to lionize him beyond reality, even as he lied to the courts, to Congress and to the American people about his infidelity; perjuring himself in the eyes of the law.

When one contrasts Speaker Gingrich’s “baggage” to that of former-President Clinton one must conclude that Mr. Gingrich’s, no matter how one feels about the morality of the issue, did not exist in violation of the law or the public trust, yet today the Obama Administration courts Mr. Clinton to campaign for President Obama’s re-election, while disingenuous media operatives, pundits and so-called “strategists” opine critically about Mr. Gingrich’s “baggage.”

In 1989, ABC News reported:

“Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. Responding to a story in today’s Washington Times, Frank said he had hired the prostitute out of his own funds as a personal aide and fired him when he found out what was going on.”

And in 2009, FOX News in Boston reported:

“Congressman Barney Frank was present during a marijuana arrest at James Ready’s home in Ogunquit, Maine. Ready is well-known for his relationship with Congressman Frank…According to a police report, police charged Ready with marijuana possession, cultivation and use of drug paraphernalia in August of 2007. Ready admitted to civil possession and paid a fine. The remaining charges were dismissed in 2008.”

Rep. Frank is quoted as saying of the marijuana cultivation, sale and usage by his boyfriend that he is, “not a great outdoorsman,” and “wouldn’t recognize most plants.”

Yet, Congressman Frank not only continues to serve in Congress – and in a senior leadership role, even being allowed to co-author the notorious Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill – he is treated as a champion of the Progressive Movement, if, for nothing else, being obstinate in his demand for special treatment for Liberal special interests and for his defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two institutions whose actions served as catalyst for the mortgage meltdown.

Again, when juxtaposing Speaker Gingrich’s “baggage” with that of Congressman Frank’s, one must conclude that, at the very least, Mr. Gingrich’s indiscretions affected his family – exclusively, and in a way that resulted in Mr. Gingrich admitting to and taking responsibility for his actions. By contrast, Mr. Frank, to this day, feigns ignorance to the two events; one that required the intervention of law enforcement and the other which should have; events so uncomplicatedly obvious that to believe that Mr. Frank was oblivious to both is be believe him a simpleton; a moron, or at the very least, vacuous. Yet today, Mr. Frank is sought out by the propagandist media, the Progressive punditry and – again – the so-called “strategists” as an elder statesman, while the same cadre of intellectually dishonest narcissists rail on about Mr. Gingrich’s perceived “baggage.”

On the night of July 18, 1969, Sen. Edward Kennedy, brother of Pres. John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, drove his car off a bridge and into a pond on Chappaquiddick Island on Martha’s Vineyard. Mr. Kennedy swam to safety leaving Mary Jo Kopechne, then 28, a campaign worker on his brother Robert’s presidential campaign, to drown; trapped in his submerged car.

According to eNotes.com, a comprehensive fact-checked, online educational resource:

“A fraction of a second before he reached the bridge, Kennedy applied his brakes; he then drove over the side of the bridge. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond and came to rest upside-down underwater. Kennedy later recalled that he was able to swim free of the vehicle, but Kopechne was not. Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne’s name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach her seven or eight times, then rested on the bank for around fifteen minutes before returning on foot to Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other “Boiler Room Girls” had occurred. Kennedy denied seeing any house with a light on during his journey back to Lawrence Cottage.

“In addition to the working telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, according to one commentator, his route back to the cottage would have taken him past four houses from which he could have telephoned and summoned help; however, he did not do so. The first of those houses, referred to as “Dike House”, was 150 yards away from the bridge, and was occupied by Sylvia Malm and her family at the time of the incident. Malm later stated that she had left a light on at the residence when she retired for that evening.

“According to Kennedy’s testimony, [Senator Kennedy's cousin, Joseph] Gargan and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the waterway with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Both of the other men also tried to dive into the water and rescue Kopechne multiple times. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy testified, Gargan and Markham drove with Kennedy to the ferry landing, both insisting multiple times that the accident had to be reported to the authorities…”

Her body was found inside the submerged car 10 hours later. Kennedy had not reported the accident at that time.

Again from eNotes.com:

“On July 25, seven days after the incident, Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. Kennedy’s attorneys suggested that any jail sentence should be suspended, and the prosecutors agreed to this, citing Kennedy’s age, character and prior reputation. Judge James Boyle sentenced Kennedy to two months’ incarceration, the statutory minimum for the offense, which he suspended.”

Senator Kennedy was re-elected the following year with 62 percent of the vote. Ms. Kopechne is still dead.

Couple this with myriad brushes with law enforcement where alcohol was involved – and a divorce – and any attempt to compare Speaker Gingrich’s marital issues with the deadly legacy left by Edward Kennedy would be laughable at best; contemptible in the least.

Yet today, according to The Daily Caller:

“…the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, [is a] structure set to cost taxpayers no more than $68 million, $38.3 million of which has already been appropriated for the project.

“The money for the project will not just come from the good people of the Bay State but also from taxpayers across the country…[S]ince 2009 the Kennedy Institute has received three rounds of major appropriations from the federal government.

“In the 2009 federal budget, $5,813,000 was appropriated to the project through the Labor Department and Department of Health & Human Services spending bill. In the 2010 budget, $13,600,000 was funneled through the from the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services and another $18,900,000 through the Defense Department spending bill.

“In April of [2010], Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Edward Markey attempted to insert another $8 million more in the now defunct Omnibus bill.”

But, the media pundits and “political strategists” insist, Mr. Gingrich has baggage.

It should also be noted here, that the man that today’s Right – that Republicans and Conservatives – revere the most, President Ronald Reagan, he, too, was divorced and remarried.

HyperHistory.net explains:

“His political views and business with being an actor hurt his marriage greatly. Reagan and [Jane] Wyman spent less and less time together, and finally, the strain of work pressures and different interests split them apart, and Wyman filed for a divorce. While in court she testified, ‘In recent months my husband and I engaged in continual arguments on his political views…finally, there was nothing in common between us…nothing to sustain our marriage.’ On June 29, 1948, the court granted the divorce and awarded Wyman the custody of their daughter and son. The divorce left Reagan, who was thirty-seven, very stunned.

“Reagan remained fully involved with SAG. He still had many friends and dated many young starlets, but he was still unhappy. ‘My loneliness is not from being unloved, but rather from not loving,’ he remembered. And then he found Miss Nancy Davis. They dated for two years and then were married.”

There are many of you who might think that I am acting the apologist for Mr. Gingrich. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Infidelity is, in many cases, a heartbreaking event for one spouse or both. It is a betrayal of trust and illustrates a personal weakness in those who engage in it. And while there are many reasons given for personal infidelity, none compares to being honest enough to examine the reasons why one would be moved to infidelity, if for no other reason than to come to an understanding about whether or not a marriage is working.

In Mr. Gingrich’s case, he did come to address the issue with his then-wife, Jackie. They decided – mutually – to divorce. Where the clandestine act of infidelity gave way to honesty in divorce for the Gingrich’s, it took the glare of the media spotlights to extract honesty for the Clintons. As for Barney Frank and the late-Teddy Kennedy…well, honesty just isn’t – or wasn’t, as the case may be – their “bag.”

The fact of the matter is this. As sad as the state of our society is today where infidelity and divorce are concerned, they are more common than we are willing to admit. In fact, in Hollywood circles, infidelity is the catalyst for reality television and considered almost acceptable among the glitterati.

The point I am trying to make is this. In an age when the world is being enveloped in darkness – both ideologically and violently; when our country stands on the brink of deteriorating from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy; when government has grown into such a behemoth that it is on the precipice of being the master to the very people who created it, We the People had better look beyond the imperfections of the personal man where “political viability” and “electability” are concerned.

Today, as we advance in the 2012 election cycle, We the People need the smartest man in the room at the helm of the Ship of State. We need someone who has humility enough to learn from past errors, correcting course when it is the best choice to make, leading our nation in this tumultuous time. We need someone who understands and respects the knowledge that only history can afford as we – as a nation; as the guardians of liberty – navigate the future.

What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his “baggage” is too heavy to carry.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Commentary, Elections, Politics Tagged With: 2012 election, baggage, barney frank, candidate, clinton, Conservatives, electibility, kennedy, mainstream media, Newt Gingrich, political baggage, Politics, pundits, Republicans, strategists, viability

ShareThis

The Triangulation of the ‘Occupy’ Movement

November 11, 2011 By Frank Salvato 1 Comment

Throughout the painful and paradoxical existence of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) we have been told by those in the mainstream media, as well as by sympathetic politicos, that at its root, at its genesis, the OWS Movement was both organic and legitimate. We were told that the movement was exclusively about a rebellion against high unemployment and crony Capitalism, even as those championing the cause disingenuously blurred the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism. But, an honest examination of the underlying goal(s) of this movement – and who is serving to advance its agenda – exposes a nefarious, deceitful and dangerous reality.

The notion of “triangulation” is not new to American politics. Savvy politicians have triangulated messages and circumstances to their benefit ever since the creation of our country. One needs look no further than the debates that took place over the creation of the US Constitution to understand that even though our Framers and Founders were dedicated to their principles and positions, they were willing to employ rhetorical leverage to achieve their goals. Alexander Hamilton was a master at message triangulation.

Perhaps the most contemporary politician to masterfully employ the art of message triangulation was former Pres. Bill Clinton. In pursuit of re-election in 1996, Clinton senior advisor Dick Morris advocated for a set of statements, a set of policies, that differed from those of his fellow elected Democrats. These policies, which pandered to the ideological Middle and Right, included deregulation and balanced budgets, culminating in the false declaration, included in Mr. Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address, that the “era of big government is over.”

Triangulation, by way of definition, can be summarized as:

“…the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being ‘above’ and ‘between’ the Left and Right sides (or factions) of a traditional democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.”

The same triangulation tactics used by politicos to further their careers can also be used by organizations and movements. In the case of the OWS movement, the use of a triangulated message by Progressives serves to blur the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism, luring the citizenry to focus on the word “Capitalism,” associating it with the idea of “unfairness,” while Progressives present the notion of redistribution of wealth – a Progressive, neo-Marxist tenet – as being “fair.”

Crony Capitalism can best be defined as:

“A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.”

And while crony Capitalism is something that any honest, hard-working, taxpaying American should abhor, the attempt to foist the neo-Marxist, Progressive principle of redistribution of wealth on the American people under the convoluted guise of Capitalism being unfair, is, dare I say, wicked and evil; at the very least it is a lie.

A fair explanation of Capitalism states:

“In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated.”

The stark difference between crony Capitalism and Capitalism is that Capitalism is based on freedom: freedom of choice; freedom from government oppression and regulatory caveat; unfettered (or relatively unfettered) commerce between the producer and the purchaser. Crony Capitalism is based on an “unlevel playing field,” where government interferes with the free market process to create an advantage for a preferred faction. A perfect example of crony Capitalism is Solyndra, where the Obama Administration granted favoritism to a private corporation through the avail of taxpayer dollars to afford it a better chance in the market place. The fact that the corporation may or may not produce something of quality and value is irrelevant.

Back to the OWS triangulation…

While the Progressives behind OWS – and by now only the terminally daft still believe the canard that the usual suspects are not involved (i.e. MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, The Open Society Institute and George Soros, etc.) – disingenuously facilitate the crony Capitalism versus Capitalism argument, they seek to diminish the anti-Americanism of redistribution of wealth, moving the notion into the mainstream by framing it as benevolent and “fair.”

As OWS participants condemn the producers – even as they coordinate their actions via cell phones and iPads; even as they drink Starbucks while wearing their Abercrombie & Fitch clothing – they do so while presenting a litany of “demands” that redistributed wealth from the “producers” to the 21st Century “neo-Proletariat”; demands that include:

The imposition of a “Robin Hood Tax” on most goods and services worldwide, with the aim of using its generated revenues to fund environmental and social-welfare programs.
The Institution of a universal single payer healthcare system.
A guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Free college education.
One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, now.
One trillion dollars in ecological restoration.
Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.

Each and every one of these “demands” requires that the producers – someone who works an honest job for an honest wage and/or invests money into a vehicle (company, business or corporation) that creates wealth for himself and others – subject themselves to the confiscation of their earned wages by government so that the non-producer (the neo-Proletariat) can benefit.

People, this is Marxism, “straight up,” to borrow and paraphrase from one of the neo-Proletariat, Janeane Garofalo.

The Progressive Left – the neo-Marxist American Left – is relentless in its pursuit of the transformation of the United States of America. Since its entrance onto the American political main stage, circa 1888, Progressives have been triangulating messages, redefining words, rewriting history and lying to the American people with a regularity that would make the producers of Metamucil jealous.

There is a great clamor in this nation for political “compromise” in the hope that said compromise will affect honest solutions for the very real problems that face our country. The problem with instituting political compromise today is this: Honest American politicians from both sides of the aisle cannot compromise with Progressives when Progressives negotiate from a position of dishonest, deceptive and self-serving ideological and political greed. Today’s Progressives – today’s neo-Marxist leaders and their self-indulgent neo-Proletariat – are just that abhorrent.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Obama, OWS, Politics, Socialism, Socialism, Socialism, Taxes, Tea Party, Unions, Working Families Party Tagged With: neo-marxism, Obama, occupy, occupy wall street, progressive, Socialist, triangulation

ShareThis

When Government Knows No Limitation

October 28, 2011 By Frank Salvato 1 Comment

I was once told by someone involved in a federal investigation not to let any identified federal law enforcement officer into your house without: a) a warrant, and, b) your lawyer present. At the time this notion seemed a bit less than cooperative, to wit: shouldn’t law abiding citizens be able to live their lives free from the fear that our own government would underhandedly manipulate our rights in their pursuit of an investigation? After all, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution enumerates a limitation on the federal government; a limitation that prevents “unreasonable search and seizure.” Today, this enumerated protection is being ignored by – of all institutions – the US Justice Department, under the darkened shadow of Attorney General Eric Holder.

A recent column by The Atlantic’s Emily Berman, a Furman Fellow and Brennan Center Fellow at NYU School of Law, informs the citizenry:

“It just got easier for the federal government to collect information about innocent Americans — and those Americans have had surprisingly little say in the matter.

“On October 15, the FBI reportedly implemented new rules that relax restrictions on, and oversight of, the FBI’s intelligence collection activities. Although they are not available to the public, reports indicate the changes permit FBI agents to search an individual’s trash with the goal of finding material that might pressure him into becoming a government informant, grant agents the authority to search commercial or law enforcement databases without first opening an investigation, and reduce the type of investigations subjected to heightened oversight because of their relationship to protected First Amendment expression, association, or religious practice.

“This is the third modification of the FBI’s intelligence collection authorities since September 11, 2001. First in 2002, again in 2008, and finally, just last week, amendments were adopted with scant public attention and with minimal — if any — congressional involvement. Groups and communities concerned about the new rules’ impact on civil liberties, particularly the risk of religious or ethnic profiling, also had no constructive input.”

Granted, there continues to be debate surrounding the PATRIOT Act, signed into law after the jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001. Debate is good. It helps all involved – citizenry, government and advocacy groups, to present cogent arguments in pursuit of protections for the US Constitution and the whole of the Charters of Freedom. But the PATRIOT Act, whether you agree with it or not, was the result of a direct enemy attack on our country; it was in pursuit of protection for our citizenry. And while it may need to be refined, it is a completely different matter from the federal government usurping enumerated limitations on federal authority and protected rights to extract information from an American citizen who is not officially under investigation; to coerce an American citizen in matters not related to national security, and even then without due process.

The Fourth Amendment states quite clearing:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It’s pretty straight forward; there is a procedure in place (due process) that the federal government must adhere to when engaging an American citizen in matters of law enforcement. To ignore – or usurp – this due process is to ignore the rule of law; the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic. To ignore due process, where an American citizen is concerned, is unconstitutional and criminal in nature.

If that weren’t enough, Eric Holder’s Justice Department is also acting to codify a long standing policy that effectively validates lying to not only the American people, but the judicial branch as well:

“A longtime internal policy that allowed Justice Department officials to deny the existence of sensitive information could become the law of the land — in effect a license to lie — if a newly proposed rule becomes federal regulation in the coming weeks.

“The proposed rule directs federal law enforcement agencies, after personnel have determined that documents are too delicate to be released, to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests ‘as if the excluded records did not exist.’

“Justice Department officials say the practice has been in effect for decades, dating back to a 1987 memo from then-Attorney General Edwin Meese.

“In that memo, and subsequent similar internal documents, Justice Department staffers were advised that they could reply to certain FOIA requests as if the documents had never been created. That policy never became part of the law — or even codified as a federal regulation — and it was recently challenged in court.

“A final version of the proposal could be issued by the end of 2011. If approved, the new rule would officially become a federal regulation with the force of law.”

All of this presents a question that I have been asking a lot lately: Who does one call when the chief law enforcement officer; when the federal department responsible for upholding justice, ignores our rights and begins acting like Third World or Soviet-Era intelligencia?

From his refusal to protect the voting rights of every citizen, to the blatant, politically based, “social justice” racism executed by his department – and now his pursuit of the deliberate usurpation of the enumerated limitations placed on the federal government to protect the rights of the citizenry in both personal security and our right to know – Mr. Holder has not only been a disgrace to the American system of justice, he has effectively become an enemy to the US Constitution, the whole of the Charters of Freedom and the very ideas of blind justice and liberty.

If for no other reason, Holder’s exit from the federal government will be one of the major benefits of the Obama Administration coming to an end. But for now, as I asked before, who do you call when 9-1-1 is the criminal?

Filed Under: Political Corruption, Politics Tagged With: Constitution, erics holder, FBI, federal government, Justice Department, Obama, privacy, search

ShareThis

Why Democracy Is Dangerous for the ‘Arab Spring’

October 24, 2011 By Frank Salvato Leave a Comment

By Frank Salvato

There is a concerted movement that began in earnest with the Progressive Era to identify the United States of America as a Democracy. To be sure, this movement has made great strides in convincing the American citizenry of just that. This movement has been so successful in delivering this message that Democrats, Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives have, throughout history – and even up to and including today, have identified our American form of government as that of being a Democracy. There is even an initiative promoted by our federal government to export “Democracy” throughout the world. Today we see this initiative playing out in the Middle East and North Africa. There is only one thing wrong with all of the above and the problem exists at the root: The United States of America is not a Democracy; it never has been and, God willing, it never will be.

Democracy has always, throughout history, served as a gateway to despotism. This is primarily because Democracy is tantamount to “mob rule,” or government by the majority. In a government ruled by the will of the majority – a Democracy, the rights of the minority are not guaranteed and are often neglected or even ignored by those who hold power, most often in pursuit of keeping or maintaining that power.

Additionally, in a Democracy, because it is essentially government by the will of the majority, government has no constraints. If fifty-one percent of the people – or a plurality of the people – can be persuaded to believe a particular avenue of thinking; convinced that a certain law is “necessary,” it becomes the policy of the government or the law of the land, regardless of whether or not the minority’s rights have been usurped or protected.

The history of the world, where governments are concerned, have proved quite clearly that there is a natural progression from Democracy to mob rule, which gives way to anarchy and, eventually, tyranny under an oligarchy. An examination of the democracies of the early Greek city states illustrates this progression.

Looking at Democracy from a historical – or realistic – viewpoint, especially where transition to Democracy is concerned, it can be stated with confidence that the best organized – and usually the best funded – faction among a people in turmoil is almost always the most influential when a new form of government is established out of the chaos that encompasses governmental transition. This is exactly the case in the events taking place across the Middle East and North Africa.

It is smart, at this point, to layout the transitional formulaic timeline so as to map out the evolution of almost all of the governmental transitions that have, to date, taken place in the so-called “Arab Spring.”

In each country, discontent with despotic leadership – self-protecting and nepotistic oligarchies, rulers with an often violently heavy hand, who routinely oppressed political opponents and opposing political organizations, who, in many cases, jailed those of differing political and/or religious ideologies – provoked a move toward rebellion.

That rebellion fomented a move to public civil disobedience. At first, these protests; these demonstrations, were organic; comprised of mostly urban inhabitants better suited to use the tools of modern social networking to organize protest locations and attendance. As international media began to inform the world of these events, people from more rural locations began to trek to protest sites. And as these events became increasingly potent they became fertile ground for factions and organizations more familiar with organizing large groups of people to action. In some cases – as in Egypt with the self-injection of the Progressive Movement and international labor union organizations, like SEIU – these elements were non-indigenous entities based in foreign political ideologies, possessing ulterior motives targeting any new system of government.

These prolonged, well organized and well funded demonstrations fueled anarchical chaos, used as a tool to bring about revolutionary change. It is important to understand that in the condition of anarchy there exists a vacuum where no central authority exists; there are no laws, no protection for the populace of property. During this anarchical chaos, rioting, looting, destruction and physical violence became prevalent, thus facilitating a thirst among the populace, in each of the affected countries, for order; for control. As stated earlier, the best suited groups to provide this order, this control, were the best organized and best funded factions among the people; usually the very people who encouraged the anarchical chaos from the start; the people and groups most likely to gain from the overthrow of the existing government.

This scenario came to pass in almost every event in the so-called Arab Spring. From Tunisia to Egypt, from Libya to Syria to Yemen, a despotic oligarchy was in the seat of power, chaotic and most often violent protects ensued and a power vacuum manifested only to see the best organized and funded factions among the peoples – in many cases military or armed factions – seize power under the guise of facilitating future “democratic elections.”

This is exactly what happened during the Russia Revolution of 1917, which saw Vladimir Lenin establish total control over the Russian people, and also what happened in the run up to Nazi Era Germany, when Hitler’s “Brown Shirts” created the chaos that catapulted him to power. It is also the same formula followed by Fidel Castro and Ché Guevara during the Cuban Revolution. In each instance, the resulting forms of government that evolved from the chaos were responsible for millions of deaths and genocide.

Understanding the frailties and vulnerabilities of Democracy is important in understanding the very real threats facing the people of the Middle East as the so-called “Arab Spring” evolves. In each of the countries affected there are well organized and well funded factions that either stand in the wings waiting for the right moment to make their moves toward the seat of power or have already done so.

In Egypt, two factions have advanced toward the seat of power, even as “free and democratic elections” are promised to the people: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (the Egyptian military) and the once outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has delayed elections while expanding power, almost on an ongoing basis, only recently setting on a date – November 28, 2001 – on which the four month parliamentary election process will begin. The presidential election is slated for 2012. At each stage of getting to this point, the military has acted sluggishly and with a totalitarian hand. Renewed protests have materialized in Tahrir Square, with protest organizers demanding speedy reforms, the lifting of the decades-old emergency law, an end to military trials of civilians and “social justice,” the last demand suspiciously symbiotic with the international labor union and Progressive movements.

On the other end of Egypt’s “Arab Spring” spectrum exists the Muslim Brotherhood: an organization that exists at the epicenter of fundamentalist Islam; an organization that serves as a spiritual focal point for violent jihadi organizations (i.e. al Qaeda and all of its off-shoots, Hezbollah, and Hamas, to name but a scant few) around the world. The Muslim Brotherhood exists as the best organized factionamong the Egyptian people, rivaling the Egyptian military in both organizational ability and funding. In fact, it can be argued that the Egyptian people are more sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood than to the military, who are facilitating and guaranteeing elections.

Members of both of these groups stand to fair nicely in both the parliamentary elections and the presidential election.

In Libya, anti-Qaddafi rebels poised to attain power have been tied to jihadi elements connected to al Qaeda and in some instances, jihadi forces that have physically engaged in combat against American military units in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The same fact present when an examination of the events in Yemen is undertaken.

In Syria, as Bashar Assad continues his genocidal tamping down of anti-regime protesters even in the face of international calls for his removal from power, “Arab Spring” revolutionaries face a future where either Assad prevails or even more draconian Iranian operativesascend to the reign of power.

And in Tunisia, fundamentalist Islamist factions are exerting their influence of the shape of their society. On October 14, 2011, Islamic extremists firebombed the home of a TV station executive just hours after militants clashed with police in the streets of Tunis in protest of the station’s broadcast of a film they claim violated Islamic values.

Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets in the West – along with opportunistic politicians, and community organizing and international labor union leadership – celebrate the “transition to democracy” facilitated by the “freedom fighters” of the “Arab Spring.”

In 1992, the terrorist group Hezbollah – born of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – politicized its organization, agreeing to participate in that country’s elections for the first time. In their first political sojourn they won all twelve seats for which they slated candidates. Today, Hezbollah members are part of the Lebanese government and maintain virtual control over Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah, the organization responsible for more deaths of US military personal before the September 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda on the United States, has been validated via the democratic process as a legitimate political organization.

In 2006, Hamas, a United States State Department recognized terrorist organization, achieved political validity via democratic elections in Gaza. They then immediately entered into armed insurrection with their political and military rival in the Palestinian-held territories, Fatah, establishing themselves as the sole seat government in the Gaza Strip.

In 2007, Marxist Hugo Chavez, then already elected to a term-limited presidency per Venezuela’s constitution, advanced sweeping constitutional changes that allowed him to be re-elected indefinitely. Chavez initially won the Venezuelan presidency via democratic elections.

The overriding point in all of this is that history always – always – repeats itself.

The “Arab Spring,” occurring in today’s Middle East, is just as vulnerable to despotic forces as were the revolutions that took place in Russia in 1917, Germany in the 1930s and Cuba in 1959…and the repercussions of the ascendance of these despotic powers could be the catalyst for a seminal confrontation that could very well encompass the globe.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy and the threats of Islamic jihadism and Progressive neo-Marxism. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of the International Analyst Network and has been a featured guest on al Jazeera’s Listening Post and on Russia Today. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and was featured in the documentary, “Ezekiel and the MidEast ‘Piece’ Process: Israel’s Neighbor States.” He is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain’s America Radio Show, nationally syndicated by the Genisis and Phoenix Broadcasting Networks, catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. Mr. Salvato is also heard weekly on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the IRN-USA Radio Network. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, Gerard Direct and are syndicated nationally. He is a featured political writer for EducationNews.org,BigGovernment.com and Examiner.com and is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at contact@newmediajournal.us.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Big Government, Defense, Democrats, Elections, Middle East, National, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Political Corruption, Politics, Socialism, War on Terror

ShareThis

When the Greedy Feign Outrage

October 7, 2011 By Frank Salvato Leave a Comment

“Greedy: Excessively or inordinately desirous of wealth, profit, etc.; avaricious.”
– Dictionary.com

By now, no doubt, you have heard about the “incredible” Occupy Wall Street Movement taking place on and around Wall Street; a movement whose organizers claim is “organic” and spreading across the globe, not unlike the so-called “Arab Spring.”
There are a few problems with this claim, however. First, the movement is anything but “organic.” And second, for the most part, the “Arab Spring” has facilitated the rise of radical Islamist factions to the courts of power. Incredible indeed.

The “movement” is incredible for many reasons; incredible in that what we are being asked to believe the impossible or very difficult to believe, via the reporting in the mainstream media and declarations issued from the movement’s organizers. Interviews with a credible sampling of those in attendance prove that many participants don’t even know why they are there but for it being “the place to be” for the terminally and youthfully disgruntled.

But a closer examination of who is in attendance, who is stepping up to the proverbial microphone and what “the movement” is issuing as a set of “demands,” makes the studied eye suspicious that this may, in fact, be the mother of all political “astroturfing” initiatives, just in time to demonize the job creators as “greedy” in the run up to an election where the incumbent – Barack Obama – hasn’t an accomplishment to run on.

Perhaps the biggest “red flag” (no pun intended) came in the form of statements made by left-wing Progressive agitator, self-avowed Communist and former Obama Administration official Van Jones. Jones is currently the lead rabble-rouser of the “American Dream Movement,” a radically left-wing political activist organization run by the Progressive group MoveOn.org Civic Action, in partnership with a number of other Leftist and Liberal groups ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to Planned Parenthood.

CNS News’ Matt Cover reports:

“Jones linked his American Dream movement to the left-wing Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, saying that both efforts were part of the same grassroots movement.

“‘There are two incredible expressions right now – and there may be more later – of frustration and pain and hope for this country,’ Jones said after the rally in speaking with reporters. ‘There’s the occupy movement, which we love and respect, there’s the American Dream movement – and keep your eyes open [because] there’s going to be a flowering of movements in this country to take back the American dream.’”

Jones went on to say:

“The American Dream movement is only nine weeks old…We are already massively bigger than the TEA Party was when it was nine weeks old…Yesterday’s story was the TEA Party. Today’s story is the American Dream movement. We are what’s next…”

Then there is the list of “demands” made by the Occupy Wall Street Movement:

Restoration of the living wage.
Institute a universal single payer healthcare system.
Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Free college education.
Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end.
One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, now.
One trillion dollars in ecological restoration.
The decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.
Racial and gender equal rights amendments.
Open borders migration.
Bring American elections up to international standards.
Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.
Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Allow all workers access to unionization and collective bargaining at any time.

These “demands” look more like elements of the Communist Manifesto than a laundry list of unreasonable demands presented by activist university students and Progressive community organizers.

These “demands” are so incredibly inane and egregious that it almost defies any reasonable effort to critique them, and that is aside from the asinine idea of borrowing two trillion dollars in special interest spending from either Communist China or Islamist-friendly Saudi Arabia to satisfy just two of these ill-thought out “demands.”

I wonder if anyone has asked the rank-and-file Occupiers (ironic that they would use a descriptor that they themselves use to demonize Israel) just where the money would come from if, in fact, a “guaranteed living wage income, regardless of employment” were to come into existence. Who would work? Who would feel the need to have to? This notion is almost directly out of the policy that established the Soviet Union, yet Progressives say they aren’t Marxist in their philosophy.

Then there is the idea of “immediate, across the board, debt forgiveness for all.” The idea of “the collective” is strong with these young ones. We can thank the indoctrination mills we call universities for that; for teaching our children what to think instead of how to think; for failing to teach students critical thinking skills.

Pray tell, if everything that is owed to those who issue paychecks is made to be “forgiven,” with what capital will the paycheck issuers pay the “guaranteed living wage income, regardless of employment”?

But perhaps the most infuriating “demand” comes in the form of this: Bring American elections up to international standards. The United States – but for the manipulation of ballots and the voting process by opportunistic and nefarious elements, such as ACORN, MoveOn.org and any number of Progressive community organizing groups; and aside from the Holder Justice Department’s enactment of “social justice” measures to overlook voter intimidation laws – is the most equitable election process in the world. To look to the Third-World-friendly United Nations elections verification process – a process that validated the elections of Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, as well as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – is to enlist a lecher to chaperone a beauty pageant. The notion is absurd.

An honest man examines those involved with the “Occupy Wall Street” and “American Dream” Movements, along with the demands being made, only to identify the initiatives as emanating from far-Left activists more aligned with Marxism; with Democratic Socialism; with Soviet Era Collectivism; with the very dangerous and elitist Progressive Movement, than with American and Western-style Capitalism. Capitalism: one of the founding principles used to establish our nation and the great American experiment.

That understood, I do believe that Wall Street has some answering to do. So many questionable financial vehicles have been created to achieve monetary wealth; vehicles that have nothing to do with a company’s ability to produce or a product, that an honest “soul searching” is called for among the more laissez faire capitalists, among whom are counted George Soros, godfather and benefactor to the Progressive and anti-Capitalist movements.

In the end, it all boils down to the definition of “greedy” and the application of that word.

If someone works hard to acquire capital he cannot be thought of as greedy. If someone risks his or her capital on an investment, knowing full well he or she could lose that capital, the rewards of a successful investment cannot be misconstrued as greedy. Equally so, if someone takes their capital and creates a product that is insanely popular, the return on that risk cannot be labeled as greedy.

But those who demand that government take from the earners, the investors, the financial risk takers, the entrepreneurs, and the inventors, only to redistribute that wealth – that earned and rewarded wealth – to “the masses” so that they can be “guaranteed a living wage income, regardless of employment”? My friends, they are the greedy ones…and after three weeks they don’t smell very good either.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Big Government, Commentary, Democrats, Economy, Elections, National, Obama, Political Corruption, Politics, Socialism, Socialism, Working Families Party Tagged With: Economy, Marxist, Obama, occupy wall street, progressive, protest, Socialist, Van Jones

ShareThis

When Did Honesty Become Optional?

An ‘Axelrod-esque’ Moment for Gingrich

Raiding of the Treasury to Bribe the Irresponsible

Promises, Promises: The Reality of Campaign Speak

So, What Actually Came of the ‘Shellacking’ of 2010?

Political Baggage: Establishment & Media Manipulation

The Triangulation of the ‘Occupy’ Movement

When Government Knows No Limitation

Why Democracy Is Dangerous for the ‘Arab Spring’

When the Greedy Feign Outrage

Donate

eNews and Updates

Recent Posts

Emerging Corruption Media Appearances and Press Releases

Featured Video

Featured Book

Tweet Blender

Blogroll

Recent Comments

Meta