Corruption — 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

CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE CRY LIVES ARE AT RISK!! RACISM, SEXISM…

February 11, 2012 By Rebecca Diserio Leave a Comment

At a National Press event, groups like “Catholics for Choice” and the “Reproductive Justice League” gathered to make statements about the HHS ongoing conundrum over Women’s Birth Control and Abortion Services’. Health & Human Services under Obamacare ordered Catholic Institutions to provide Birth Control and Abortions, something that goes against the very teachings of the Church. As the blowback by people of Faith leveled the Administration, Obama changed his mind and has said the Insurances will provide it, “maybe”. Upset over the flip-flop, Catholics for Choice, an unrecognized group at Catholic University came out full force to share their stories.

First up at the Press conference was Callie Otto, Catholic University Student and President of the group “Catholics for Choice”. Callie states she is not a practicing Catholic. She relates in a emphatic tone that her “Religious liberty to practice individual freedoms are being “trampled” and this is not acceptable”. HUH? Her Religious liberty…to practice individual freedoms…are being trampled…I don’t even know what that means–what does that mean Callie?? Callie states she pays 50,000 dollars a year tuition (I guess she didn’t get the free student loans from Obama?) and cries “for that kind of money shouldn’t I be able to get free birth control too?”

How can we still be so racist, sexist, misogynist? Callie can’t seem to get over “the discrimination”. Catholic University is “imposing their Religious beliefs on the Students by not providing Abortions and Birth Control on Campus”. Right, how can Catholic University not provide those things….what a bunch of haters!

Other speakers like Erik Orantes, who proudly stated he interned for Pelosi, was extremely upset. Mr. Orantes is also a student at that terrible Catholic University. Erik tells of students having to “hide” and be “shunned” who are looking for birth control, and of students “having to travel great distances to search and obtain birth control. (Erik & Gang- google- Clinics for Birth Control Washington DC area-wow 5 clinics- isn’t that just a big fat surprise? huh. Maybe the crazy kids google is “broken” too) Erik was also “appalled”, and called on “men of virtue to stand up” at all the “trampling of rights going on with the birth control issue in America!” And it goes on like that for about 20 minutes, with students from Georgetown and Fordham relating the same type shock and total utter hardship searching the Country for Birth Control.

The whole problem it seems, is that since they attend Catholic Universities which do not provide birth control, where are they to go? They can’t seem to find anywhere to get birth control, and they are extremely upset at those mean US Bishops who are to blame for their rights being trampled and their “lives at risk” over this situation. They state the Bishops blowback at Obama have caused the HHS to recant the order to the Catholic Church to pay for their employees and students Birth Control, Abortions, Abortifacients, which they call “Women’s Reproductive Rights”. One Student who stated her name was Sondra became teary eyed at the thought of her friend who has ovarian cysts, and no way to get birth control pills, and the pain, the pain she is experiencing hourly. Sondra yelled “And you, you US Bishops don’t suffer, you have no idea what suffering is”.

I called three Free Clinics and all three said with an ovarian cyst condition “if birth control pills were prescribed, they would be eligible for obtaining them for free”–if they made under 22,000 a year (one person). If they made over that amount the price would be at the most 50.00 a month. I was suffering just listening to the absurd thought of Law School Students being stumped on where to get Birth Control….but I guess its an epidemic.

One Keeley Monroe, added that as a freshman at Fordham she felt the need to almost put out a “cheesy want ad”. Keeley put the frustrations of the group like this “a cheesy want ad saying female looks for affordable contraception who is perfectly able of making that decision”. Cheesy as well of course, is this ad “capable female can’t find affordable contraception anywhere in America?”.

And, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was also a speaker. She is well known to in the Catholic world as a dissenter and an illogical one at that. In the Atlantic (Dec 9th 2011), she talked about the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, which she made emphasis that it is “the Feast of the Conception of Mary—not Jesus”. She said that since “St. Anne and St. Joachim (naturally conceived Mary), then shouldn’t the Catholic Bishops realize woman have consciences and know when to conceive.” Now what does that mean…. Kathleen…. what does it meeaaan? I also had 12 years Catholic School, but I must have missed this class on all things relevant to rational thought on all things. The Kennedy clan, really need to think about calling themselves Catholic, they seem to think the Catholic Church’s doctrines and dogmas are up for a popular vote. The whole idea is laughable. What comes to mind are the dogs of Proverbs, and Peter 2:2 see link: wXWboJ

How about the freedom to chose to leave the Catholic Church? Or not go to a Catholic University? And do I have to say, I know it may be a stretch, but this isn’t about access of birth control, my God, 12 year olds can get ABORTIONS in California WITHOUT their parents even being notified. This of course, is about making individuals who are in charge of Religious Institutions, pay for what the Church has steadfastly deemed against it’s teachings. Moreover, this isn’t about Catholics, or ignorant illogical youths, its about undercutting Liberty. And they will keep coming. We must send the message that their irrational doublespeak, won’t be allowed to pass this time. We Americans won’t back down…we never do when it comes to Freedom.

Wikio

Wikio

Filed Under: Corruption, Health Care, National, News Stories, Politics, Religion Tagged With: Catholics for Choice, Kathleen Kennedy, Obamacare

ShareThis

Counterfeit Conservatives – Newt Romney

January 24, 2012 By Scott Rohter Leave a Comment

The Devil comes as an angel of light, and he sounds so much like a messenger from God that if it were possible, he would deceive even the very elect.

Of course it is not possible the Bible proclaims, because God is the guarantor of our salvation! But who or what is the guarantor of our personal freedom? In the United States, the Constitution is the great guarantor of our freedom!

But how can this amazing document, which is the greatest achievement of our Founding Fathers, who have long ago died, defend even one of our sacred liberties from the encroachments of living politicians who have more than once tried? The plain and simple truth is that no assemblage of mere words, no matter how lofty or high-minded they are, can defend us unless we are first willing to defend our Constitution. So like-minded conservatives and libertarians must insist upon strict compliance with the true meaning, and the clear intent of the Constitution!

The enemies of freedom are always those progressive politicians who try to twist and distort the Constitution to conform to their own progressive agenda! No one should be allowed to reconfigure or transform the Constitution to satisfy their own personal, or their Party’s goals!

Today, some so-called conservative pundits, and radio and TV talk show hosts, sound very much like real conservatives. But they are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing! They are trying to derail the TEA Party train! They are trying to suck the wind from the TEA Party’s sails! They use the same jargon that real conservatives use, and if it is possible, and you can count on the fact that it is possible, they will deceive the very conservative voters that they are trying to influence.

So who are these phony messengers of conservative principles? Well I’m sorry to say they are people you know and trust. They are media personalities that you have grown accustomed to hearing on the radio and television, and reading in the newspapers.

Rush Limbaugh is an avid golfer, and he is supposedly the most popular prophet of conservative values. He is someone who has made more than a small fortune over the years, leading his congregation of conservative voters, but he frequently leads his followers off into the rough, on the right side of the fairway where you can often find him on the weekends.

Sean Hannity can never seem to get to the end of his long list of progressives, liberals, and RINO Republicans that he is both willing and eager to showcase on his radio and TV programs. And if he ever does run out of new and interesting liberal guests to promote, then he will just go back to the beginning of his list and start over again. There is Dick Morris, Geraldo Rivera, Bob Beckel, Ann Coulter, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, just to name a few.

Of course, we have all heard and watched Bill O’Reilly at FOX News over the years, position himself squarely in the middle on most issues, or straddling the fence so often that one could not be blamed for coming to the conclusion that he must wear a steel jock strap!

But what about the next generation of radio and TV talk show hosts, the ‘next-gen’ talkers? Laura Ingraham, I’m sorry to say is pushing her favorite progressive Republican, Newt Gingrich. Doug Urbanski was last heard promoting Mitt Romney as 2011 drew to a close, before his radio show was canceled.

The Midnight Radio Network clowns, which broadcast from the great State of Texas, a place that you would normally think is conservative, are a couple of phonies too, who are shilling for Newt Gingrich! How do I know that? I called their show once, and I tried to get just a few of the pertinent facts out about the disgraced former Speaker’s record. But they pushed the little red button that disconnected me before I could! Moments later after they jettisoned my call, they commented that if I wanted to trash Newt Gingrich, I should start my own website and do it there, but not on their show. So I actually have first-hand experience with those two phonies from Texas.

And I have taken their advice too. I started a website called NewtWorldOrderGingrich.com. The two Midnight Radio Network stooges disconnected me after only about 10 seconds on the air. This was after they had spent the first twenty minutes of their program in a monologue glorifying and praising Newt Gingrich as the only conservative who could actually beat Barack Obama. There must be a lot of pot-bellied pigs in Texas, because that sure is a lot of hogwash!

Any Republican candidate can beat Barack Obama. That’s why it is so important that we get behind a real conservative! We have a wonderful opportunity before us, if we can just get a real conservative to lead the Republican ticket.

Last but not least there is Mark Levin, a man who has a lot of intellectual and ideological influence among conservative voters, and a man I actually like listening to most of the time… But as we get closer to the actual date of the State Primaries, he seems to be reserving an awful lot of respect and support for guess who, Newt Gingrich!

The other day on his radio program, Mark Levin called Congressman Ron Paul, “A real nut job who can’t beat Obama.” Oh really! Does Mark Levin now think that he speaks for the entire nation? Let me remind him that he doesn’t even speak for the Republican Party! If Mark Levin thinks he has his hand on the pulse of America, and that he knows what most Republicans want, then maybe we should just let him pick the Republican nominee for us! After all it would certainly be a lot quicker and cheaper!

Levin has ramped up his attacks on Ron Paul. He has taken them to a whole new level of rancor. He has called Ron Paul a crackpot and a neo-confederate, whatever that means! That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that term used in so-called ‘civil’ discourse, broadly speaking. And he has called all of Ron Paul’s supporters jerks and morons.

If anyone is fracturing the Republican Party right now, it’s not Ron Paul! It’s people like Mark Levin with their hateful rhetoric. It sounds to me like he is getting very desperate. Ron Paul is not my first choice. I supported Michele Bachman, now Rick Santorum, and then Ron Paul! But if we don’t get a real conservative nominee this time, I’m ready to throw my support to Ron Paul as a Third Party candidate, no matter what anyone says! And the Republican Establishment better think long and hard before they try to shove another phony RINO Republican progressive down our throats again!

It seems to me that Ron Paul wouldn’t even get Mark Levin’s token support if he turns out to be the Republican Party’s nominee. Well that’s exactly the way I feel about Newt ‘World Order’ Gingrich! I will not support Newt Gingrich under any circumstances. I will not support a nominee who describes himself as a ‘Real Politik’ Wilsonian. I will not support someone who is a fan of author Alvin Toffler’s books, The Third Wave and Creating a New Civilization: the Politics of the Third Wave. I will not support a man who views our Constitution as an impediment or an obstacle that just gets in his way.

Newt once said, that in order to understand him you had to read Toffler’s book, The Third Wave. He is a big fan of Toffler’s ideas for a new world civilization. Toffler writes that our current form of government is obsolete, and that it must be replaced with something better, some new kind of government that will work for today. Those are the kind of ideas that Newt Gingrich is a big fan of! That is exactly what the far-left leaning political commentator, Fareed Zakaria believes too! And guess what? They are both members of the ‘forward-looking’, progressive thinking Council on Foreign Relations. I won’t vote for a progressive just because they happen to be a Republican, or because they might be one step better than an outright Marxist!

When Mark Levin isn’t openly ridiculing Ron Paul, he is being very disrespectful of the twelve-term Congressman. Levin refers to the Congressman as ‘Rue’ Paul, as in you will ‘rue the day you ever voted for him’. But although he denies it, Mark Levin is also doing a lot to advance the fortunes of Newt Gingrich, just by claiming that Mitt Romney is the official progressive Establishment candidate in the race. Levin says that Romney is a member of the Republican Establishment, while he totally ignores Newt Gingrich’s extensive Establishment credentials! Newt has a long record as a progressive ideologue, and a 22-year member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was the House Minority Whip, and later the Speaker of the House, and the third in line of succession to the President. There is no bigger member of the progressive political Establishment than Newt ‘World Order’ Gingrich. See NewtWorldOrderGingrich.com. Also see Newt Worthy or Not, Newt Gingrich Update, and Newt Gingrich Consummate Politician and Progressive Establishment Republican.

We have far more to fear from another progressive like Newt Gingrich than we do from a strict constructionist like Congressman Ron Paul!

As far as Dr. Paul’s foreign policy goes, and as extreme as some of his foreign policy statements sound, there is no stricter adherent in Congress to the Constitution than Ron Paul! Even if you disagree with some of his more extreme foreign policy views, and I do, you still have to admit that his foreign policy positions over the years are far more in line with the views of our Founding Fathers (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison) than any other candidate who is running in the Republican Presidential Primary! With that said, we also live in a very different world today, and discretion should be the general order of the day. It is certainly the better part of valor!

Next, let’s talk about some phony conservative newspaper columnists. Let’s start out with one of Mark Levin’s acknowledged friends, former Democrat, Charles Krauthammer. A couple of months ago, Krauthammer told the TEA Party activists to pack it up and go home, when they were right in the middle of trying to keep the pressure up on Congress to make serious spending cuts in order to balance the Federal Budget and to reduce the Federal Debt and deficits.

Ultimately Congress did not make the necessary and serious spending cuts, and Krauthammer was perfectly okay with that. He told the TEA Party in his column that they had made their point, and they should just go home! Why? Because Charles Krauthammer is still a Democrat in his heart, and in his mind too, even though he prefers to register now as a Republican. He probably registers Republican just in order to pull our Party farther to the left too. See my article, Farther to the Left Too.

By the way, Mark Levin calls Charles Krauthammer his personal friend! Another one of Levin’s friends is political commentator and strategist, Bob Beckel. He actually still is a Democrat. They say birds of a feather flock together. Well I guess they really do!

George Will may never have been a Democrat before, but he frequently doesn’t sound like a real conservative either. He is so far removed from the average American voter, and buried so deep inside of the Washington Beltway, that he couldn’t tell the difference between a blue-collar worker and a blue light special.

So what about the primary cause of all of this debate and divisiveness, Newt Gingrich, the disgraced former Speaker of the House? Newt has such a long political record that all you have to do is read what he has done in the past, in order to know what he will do in the future.

Newt describes himself as a ‘Real Politik’ Wilsonian, and he said in 1995 that if you wanted to understand him, you had to read The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler. This book advocates for a progressive new world order, in which adultery, homosexuality, and other forms of immorality are all considered to be perfectly normal and even desirable! That’s something that Newt Gingrich knows a lot about! For anybody that doesn’t know history, Woodrow Wilson was a progressive Democratic President in the early 1900s, who was as far to the left in his lifetime as Barack Obama is today. See Chronicling America’s Progressive Slide to Socialism. Newt referred to himself as a ‘Real Politik’ Wilsonian!

All of these people are Mark Levin’s friends to one degree or another: Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, Bob Beckel, Sean Hannity, and of course the ever-present Rush Limbaugh. Together they form a very formidable defense of the status quo, and of the Establishment. This almost impenetrable defensive line has been assembled in order to block you, and manipulate you, the Republican voters! Together they probably reach 40 to 50 million Americans every day, with their counterfeit conservative message! Mark Levin and the rest of his friends are so deep into Newt Gingrich’s public relations campaign that you would have to drag them to the surface with an trans-Atlantic underwater cable!

Finally in closing, I would like to encourage you to think about the whole issue of taxation from a slightly different perspective than the one that is usually presented by the mainstream media (FOX News included). Everyone is talking about taxes today, whether we should raise them or lower them, or leave them basically the same. One side claims that we need to raise taxes. The other side says that we need to lower taxes across the board, in order to avert disaster. Both sides are concentrating their message on how taxes directly affect middle-income people and families. However, they are both failing to point out the effect that tax revenues have on our Federal Government, a.k.a. Frankenstein.

If you want to reduce the size and the impact of this Federal monster, then you must not allow the Federal Government to increase its revenues, by any means, no matter where the money comes from! Whether it comes from rich people, or middle class people, it still goes right into the same old pockets to feed the same insatiable appetite, and to satisfy the addiction to revenue of our Federal Government! See my article, Addicted to Revenue.
NewtWorldOrderGingrich.com

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Big Government, Commentary, Defense, Democrats, Economy, Elections, Liberals, Media, Middle East, National, Obama, Politics, Socialism, Socialism, Taxes, Tea Party, War on Terror Tagged With: 2012 elections, laura ingraham, mark levin, mitt romney, Newt Gingrich, Obama, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, Taxes

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

America’s Dark Mood

January 8, 2012 By Alan Caruba Leave a Comment

By Alan Caruba

It is possible for an entire nation to suffer depression? Not the financial, but the emotional kind.

I have not spoken to anyone, however, that has expressed any optimism about the state of the nation and the air is full of conspiracy theories regarding what new action Barack Obama might take. The most popular of these is that he will declare “a national emergency” in order to assert powers that would put him in control of the nation without reference or consultation with Congress.

I would have dismissed such a notion in the past, but Obama genuinely scares me and a lot of other people as well. An example of this was the great surge in gun sales that led up to Christmas. Guns are not generally regarded as the kind of gift you find under the Christmas tree unless you’re a hunter or shooting sportsman.

I cannot shake off the memory of the march on Washington in 2009 when an estimated million Americans gathered there to peacefully protest the pending passage of Obamacare. The President’s chief political advisor, David Axelrod, dismissed the gathering saying, “They’re wrong.” That’s beyond arrogance. It signals contempt for the way a democracy works.

They were not wrong and the Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing in March in response to 26 U.S. State Attorney Generals who filed suit to have Obamacare declared unconstitutional. The manner in which the then-Democrat controlled Congress forced the bill through to passage was scary, along with then-Speaker Pelosi’s statement that we just would have to read the bill “to find out what’s in it.” It was apparent that none of members of Congress who voted for it had bothered to do that.

What’s scary, too, is that Congress has provided the presidency with all manner of virtually dictatorial powers that were intended to be evoked only in the event of a major, national crisis. Even following 9/11 these powers were not used to hamper news coverage, freedom of travel, and other aspects of our lives. 9/11, however, was followed by the Patriot Act and many of us continue to have grave misgivings about some of its provision.

A more recent piece of legislation that permits the President to authorize the seizure, arrest and imprisonment of anyone deemed an enemy of the state is scarier still. Obama says he would not use such powers but modern history is filled with examples of dictators that did.

So, yes, America is in a very dark mood these days. New Hampshire’s citizens are poised to vote for a Republican to be that party’s candidate for the presidency. Adopted in 1945, at the end of World War Two, New Hampshire’s state motto is “Live free or die.” It is my hope that other Americans feel the same way.

Suffice to say that Barack Hussein Obama is not like any other President in the history of the nation. It is more than a little frightening that this unknown quantity was so carefully “packaged” that, along with a mainstream media that were literally enthralled with him, enough voters were found to elect him.

A lot of those voters were young and likely unaware of U.S. history, the Constitution, and the principles by which the nation is intended to be governed. A lot of those young voters, now a bit older, looking for jobs that don’t exist, living at home still, and perhaps also saddled with huge college loan debt may not vote at all or vote for anyone but Obama.

The other group that was instrumental in his victory was African-Americans and one wonders if a majority among them have had a change of heart. I doubt it. A third group was union members and the civil service unions and others have benefited greatly from his Administration despite growing opposition at the state level.

It is worth keeping in mind that there is a hard core of 25% to 30% of voters who are blindly liberal and utterly immune to facts or reality. The “Occupy” movement drew from this group and they quickly wore out their welcome wherever they gathered. If enough liberals are disheartened by their personal situation, they too may not turn out in large numbers to vote.

As for the GOP, it has become fractionalized by its libertarian segment, its evangelical Christian segment, and by what was a cohesive Tea Party conservative segment. They need to set aside their differences to elect a candidate who can defeat Obama and I am inclined to believe that the closer we get to Election Day, they will.

As with any depression, one has to shake it off and find ways to turn dark moods in to bright tomorrows. That’s America’s job. We have done it in the past and we can do it again.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Commentary, Corruption, Liberals, Media, National, Politics, Uncategorized Tagged With: Barack Obama, Republican Party, US Constitution, US economy

ShareThis

Blinded by the Left: How Marxists Wrote Ron Paul’s Defense Cuts Plan

January 8, 2012 By Trevor Loudon 3 Comments

While many conservatives admire Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul’s principled economic and constitutional views, they are often bamboozled, even appalled, by the Texan’s defense and foreign policy ideas.

Ron Paul

It seems, that when it comes to defense, Ron Paul is stuck in 1776. He seems not to realize that America’s enemies, real or potential, Russia and China, and Iran chief among them, have a very long reach. The continental US is only partially protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The enemy can now attack the American homeland with ICBMs, biological weapons, cyber warfare, dirty bombs smuggled across the Mexican border – any number of deadly methods of mass destruction.

Just as frontier forts had outposts to warn of Indian attack, the US needs people all over the world to protect not just her friends and allies, but the American homeland itself.

Why then does Ron Paul, a man so rational in many areas, have such a blind spot when it comes to US national security?

In my opinion, Ron Paul’s justified distrust of the growth of government power in many unconstitutional areas has irrationally succumbed to an antipathy towards federal government activity in one of its few legitimate areas – national defense.

Further, Ron Paul’s libertarian suspicion of big government defense spending, has been deliberately fostered and encouraged by the most anti-libertarian elements in the land – the US hard left.

Ron Paul and many Libertarians think they can work with Marxists to achieve libertarian ends.

The hard bitten Leninists and disciplined Marxists of the left know they can use naive Libertarians to achieve their ends – particularly to gut America’s defenses, to the benefit of their foreign masters.

In short, the US left is using Ron Paul and other Libertarians, to do what their armies and intelligence services have long dreamed of – destroy America’s military superiority and with it, US national sovereignty.

By promoting the left’s defense policies, Ron Paul, a man of patriotism beyond question, could be unknowingly betraying his own country to its enemies.

The degree to which Ron Paul buys into leftist anti-defense views was well illustrated in 2010.

That year, The Sustainable Defense Task Force was formed in response to a request from far left Massachusetts Democratic Representative Barney Frank, Ron Paul and Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, to “explore possible defense budget contributions to deficit reduction efforts that would not compromise the essential security of the United States.”

What did the much heralded report recommend?

The Task Force’s proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence, reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers, canceling the Joint Strike Fighter, “severely curtail[ing] missile defense” (a direct quote from the report), retiring four Marine battalions, reducing the military by 200,000 personnel, cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years and increasing health care fees for military personnel.

Daniel Greenfield of the excellent Sultan Knish blog, points out that many of the groups contributing to the report were funded by the notorious leftist billionaire, George Soros.

But Soros was not the only sinister influence here. Several report contributors had direct ties to the Marxists of Democratic Socialists of America and indirect ties to the Communist Party USA . Members of both organizations have been convicted of spying for hostile foreign powers. Both have ties to radical regimes such as Cuba and Venezuela. Both want to overturn US capitalism and replace it with Marxist socialism.

Other contributors have ties to the ultra-leftist Institute for Policy Studies, once described by British analyst Brian Crozier, as the “perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB.”

Another associated with the Council for a Livable World – America’s oldest and best funded ‘peace” Political Action Committee. The Council was founded in 1962 by Hungarian expatriate Leo Szilard, a former Manhattan Project physicist, a Marxist and a reported Soviet spy. Council for a Livable World has helped finance hundreds of pro-”peace” leftists into office, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Sustainable Defense Task Force initiators Barney Frank and Ron Wyden.

Barack Obama in 1994, with Council for a Livable World chairman, and Democratic Socialists of America affiliate , Jerome Grossman

On February 4, 2010, the Council for a Livable World announced that David Bonior would become the next chair of PeacePAC, the organization’s arm that endorses candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. At the time, Bonior commented:

“I am honored to be selected as the next chairman of PeacePAC. I look forward to working with the experts on the committee’s Board of Directors to endorse and help elect strong, progressive candidates in the 2010 elections.

A former Democratic Party Whip, Bonior has, since 2007, been an open member of Democratic Socialists of America.

The Project on Defense Alternatives coordinated the work of the Task Force. Carl Conetta drafted the main body of the Task Force report in ongoing consultation with Task Force members who “developed or digested proposals from the diverse sources cited in the report.” A sub-committee of the Task Force reviewed the final draft before publication. Conetta was assisted in overseeing the report by his Project on Defense Alternatives co-director and fellow Task Force member Charles Knight – a long time member of Democratic Socialists of America.

D.S.A. member, and report author Charles Knight

Knight wrote an article for Boston Democratic Socialists of America’s The Yankee Radical of October 2001, entitled “Defense Budget Blues”:

It is important to note that George Bush has now fully joined the ranks of wartime Keynesians. He has a majority coalition with Democrats to spend the country out of the recession it is now entering. In the short term the left in this country cannot hope to advance a better option. We must instead focus on deepening our analysis and story of this time in history so that when our country tires of vengeful war and its repercussions we have done the groundwork to lead the country in a different direction.

Part of that story should be that 90+% of military investments have nothing to do with countering terrorism or with defending our homeland and that if we desire not to be a target of terrorist hate in the future we need to change our country’s stance in the world.

The economic self-interest of contractors is an important fact of the political economy, but the central impetus for high military budgets comes from the utility of military power to US elites in their efforts to enhance their position of dominance across the globe. We are seeing that power in action now.

Nevertheless, I believe that the majority of Americans do not share that interest in dominance with conservative elites. We must learn to provide a viable security option for this majority of Americans.

Connetta and Knight’s organization is the lead project of the Boston based Commonwealth Institute.

Interestingly, four of the Institute’s seven board members have been identified members of Democratic Socialists of America – Charles Knight, Richard Healey, Guy Molyneux and Cynthia Ward. A fifth, S. M. Miller, has at least been a long time D.S.A. affiliate. Richard Healey is the son of the famous, late California communist Dorothy Healey and is a former staffer with the Institute for Policy Studies. Healey also serves on the board of the Rosenberg Fund for Children, which is run by the sons of executed Soviet “atom bomb spies,” Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

One notable former board member of the Project on Defense Alternatives was Dr. Philip Morrison, Professor, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who died in April 2005. Morrison had been a Communist Party member, a Manhattan Project scientist and was suspected of being a Soviet spy – code names: “Relay” or “Serb.”

Other Taskforce members also had known radical associations:

William D. Hartung: Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, a leftist “think tank” headed by Steve Coll, a former Occidental College contemporary of Barack Obama’s. Hartung also serves on the Advisory Committee ^,of Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Christopher Hellman: National Priorities Project, which is a partner organization of the Institute for Policy Studies. The N.P.P. “analyzes and clarifies federal data” so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent. Board members include Jen Kern, of the D.S.A. front American Rights at Work, who previously worked in the ACORN national office, “providing research support for local ACORN organizers nationwide on issues from insurance and banking discrimination to jobs, education and minimum wage,” two Task Force members – Paul Kawika Martin and Miriam Pemberton, an Albany New York academic Lawrence Wittner, a member of Democratic Socialists of America and Connecticut academic Vijay Prashad, a long time affiliate of the Communist Party USA.

Heather Hulburt: National Security Network and a senior adviser with leftist New York “think tank” Demos, also a partner organization of the Institute for Policy Studies. Incidentally, both Barack Obama and his former communist “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, are former Demos Trustees, while Demos CEO Miles Rapoport has a long history with D.S.A.

Judith LeBlanc with Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, 2002

Paul Kawika Martin: Political & Communications Director with Peace Action, the US’ largest “peace” umbrella group. Peace Action was formerly known as the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, a well documented communist front. Mr. Martin “uses his expertise on nuclear weapons, international relations and US foreign policy to mobilize Peace Action’s 100,000 members and lobby Congress for social change.” His recent travels include trips to Cuba and Iran. Martin also works very closely with Judith LeBlanc, who is Peace Action’s national field organizer. LeBlanc is a vice-chair of the Communist Party USA and chairs it’s Peace and Solidarity Commission, the body charged with directing the US “peace movement” and liaising with foreign communist and terrorist organizations. Most recently, LeBlanc was organizing Peace Action activist to lobby the Senate “Committee of 12″ to institute massive defense spending cuts.

Laicie Olson: Senior policy analyst Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and board member of Council for a Livable World.

Miriam Pemberton: Institute for Policy Studies and the peace and security editor for Foreign Policy in Focus. Pemberton leads a group that produces the annual “Unified Security Budget for the United States.” Other recent publications include, “The Budgets Compared: Military vs. Climate Security.” She has authored two reports comparing the budgets for military and climate security in FY2009 and FY2010 and with William Hartung published “Lessons From Iraq: Avoiding the Next War.”

Prasannan Parathasarathi: Founder of the 25% Solution, which is “building a citizen movement for cuts in the Pentagon budget.” Parathasarathi is married to fellow Boston College academic and long time Democratic Socialists of America member, Juliet Schor. Incidentally Schor was one of several D.S.A. and Institute for Policy Studies leaders who set up the radical New Party in the early 1990s. One of their most well known and successful members was Barack Obama. The Coalition for Peace Action‘s 32nd Annual Conference for Peace was held on November 13, 2011 at Princeton University. The Conference was entitled “Smart Security: Reducing Military Spending to Fund Urgent Needs at Home.” The event featured talks from Dr. Prasannan Parthasarathi and Judith LeBlanc of the Communist Party, who “encouraged the audience to be hopeful about our political progress and to be involved with the current Occupy movements around the country.”

Prasannan Parthasarathi , left, Judith Leblanc, center

Clearly Ron Paul and Barney Frank’s Sustainable Defense Task Force was totally dominated by the hard left – people with an interest in transforming America through socialist revolution.

How did Ron Paul get sucked into this leftist scam? Did he not care who wrote his country’s defense policies? Did he not do “due diligence” on the people he entrusted with such a huge responsibility?

Either Ron Paul was extremely negligent in checking the bona fides of those he entrusted with such a vital responsibility or he just didn’t care that anti-American Marxists were involved.

I think Ron Paul was probably negligent. He was so blinded by his own prejudices, that he was willing to do a deal with the devil to get publicity for his cause.

That a serious contender for the presidency of the United States could be so careless over such a vital issue speaks volumes about his judgment.

Ron Paul may have been blinded by the left, but he is guilty of at least partially closing his eyes of his own accord. Candidate Paul should publicly admit his error and vow never to repeat it, or he should leave the presidential race and return to Congress.

Ron Paul is the best there is on financial and economic matters. That is the field where he can best serve his country and the cause of liberty.

Unfortunately, he clearly doesn’t have the understanding of defense issues required of a man who aspires to the highest office in the free world.

Filed Under: Big Government, Corruption, Defense, Economy, Elections, Liberals, Local Politics, National, Politics Tagged With: 2012 election, Barack Obama, Headline, Social Movements, Socialism/Communism, Socialist Opinion Shapers

ShareThis

Yes Virginia The Internet Does NOT Replace Old Fashioned Politics

December 24, 2011 By Warner Todd Huston Leave a Comment

-By Warner Todd Huston

When Howard Dean became a surprise front runner in the Democrat primary of 2004 doing so on the basis of a strong Internet-based campaign effort, tongues began to wag that the Internet might replace old fashioned retail politics. This time ’round Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich served to get people to question the old way of organizing a campaign.

But this week we’ve seen in Virginia why these airy claims of the Internet’s new dominance is a bit chimerical. We see that old fashioned, boots on the ground politics is still the best method to election.

By all methods of measure, Texas Governor Rick Perry is still a strong candidate in the 2012 GOP Primary race. He sometimes comes in second, third or fourth in polls, but is still considered a top contender for the nomination. Yet as the time came to file his petition signatures in Virginia, it turned out his campaign could not collect enough to get his name on the ballot. So, a reputed front running candidate for the nomination, Rick Perry, will not even appear on the Virginia primary ballot.

Perry isn’t the only one. Neither Bachmann, Huntsman, nor Santorum had the organization in the Commonwealth to gather enough signatures to make the ballot. Further, it was thought Newt Gingrich barely had enough to make it but as the final tally was made he didn’t have enough to make the ballot, either. And Newt is a resident of Virginia!

In the end, as the file date came and went only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul ended up clearly succeeding in turning in enough signatures to make the ballot.

So, what happened here? It all comes down to retail politics. Both Romney and Paul had the organizations with enough people right there in Virginia to pass around their candidate’s petitions and gather the requisite number of signatures. The others simply did not have the campaign staff or enough support in individual workers ready to hit the streets for them that Romney and Paul had.

This shows that the Internet really isn’t enough. It shows that organization still reigns supreme in the primary process. After all, if one can’t even get his name on a ballot, how does one take the next step toward becoming the nominee?

Since the beginning of this primary race there were only three candidates with a ground game. Mitt Romney who spent the last four years creating his organization, Ron Paul whose absurdly young army of acolytes will do anything for him — and which Paul spent six years assembling — and the first major candidate to quit the effort, Tim Pawlenty.

All the rest have been flying by the seat of their pants with little money and fewer numbers in their state-to-state organizations. They’ve been relying on good showings in the many debates — which has been a bigger factor than it has in the past, admittedly — and the Internet to make their dent.

Clearly it hasn’t been enough for the lower tier, however. Regardless of their suitability for the nomination, only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have the ground game to appear on every state’s primary ballots. It’s the old fashioned game of retail politics that has made the difference for them. Both spent years and tons of cash to make that happen, too.

Fair or not, until there is some major change in our primary system the ground game will make all the difference.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Liberals, Local Politics, Media, National, Politics

ShareThis

Breitbart vs Beck, It’s 4th & Goal Truth Time

December 18, 2011 By Rebecca Diserio 3 Comments

It’s a game of inches. With the White House on the line, and less than a year to go, we are rounding 3rd base. Any seasoned player rounding 3rd, knows to look to the 3rd base Coach. Turning your head, to search for the location of the ball is an amateur move. At 4th down and inches to goal, whether its a run, pass or an audible called at the line, the offensive linemen must move like a well oiled machine. Teamwork is an overused, under applied term. Its a call for players, co-workers or family members to know their role and know the role of every player on the team. The team looks to a leader, and if there is no appointed leader, and the game is on the line, each player assesses their own strength and weaknesses. Its in these times, when our Nation is on the line, Truth must begin to break through….even if it hurts.

Our Culture is sick. Its sick from the filth of an agenda that uses tricks and schemes, and lying is at the core of the illness. Its not enough to out play them, its not enough to just “win” the White House. We are sick, and Truth is our cure. Andrew Breitbart has been thrown under the bus. Glenn Beck, has made statements that need some explaining. I know there is so much folly, so many felonies to pursue on Team Obama, why would we bring attention to our team, air it out in public? Because this goes to the very core, the very soul of America. Americans lose heart, not at “losing”. No, we lose heart if our own team is by word or deed, intentionally, or unintentionally, skirting the Truth. It deflates the fight, many become cynical… again. They go back into their houses, put down their Gadsden Flags, feeling foolish. ”Duped again” they say.

The issue started with the Shirley Sherrod tapes. (Shirley Sherrod was the USDA Government Civil Servant, in a speech in March 2010, Sherrod was taped saying possible racist remarks, see link at bottom) Apparently, the NAACP leaked the tapes to Breitbart. Breitbart’s sole goal and much known passion was proving the Main Stream Media’s bias at reporting and fomenting the Tea Party as racist. Here Breitbart felt he had struck gold, he had the NAACP yelping and clapping for Sherrod’s seemingly blatant hate speech at a white farmer she was to “help”. On July 19th, 2010, Breitbart ran the story, and posted the tapes. Immediately, the White Hose gets wind of the story. According to Sherrod, while she was driving on an interstate somewhere in Georgia, she is commanded to pull over her car and resign immediately. Sherrod goes on to say, that the White House’s rush to her resignation was due in large part over Glenn Beck. The White House told her, “You’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.”

Glenn Beck had no idea about the Shirley Sherrod story by his 5pm air time. It wasn’t until the following morning (July 20th 2010) do we hear Glenn Beck’s first coverage of the Sherrod story on his morning radio show (please listen to link below). Beck aired the tapes, commenting, and judging the content, alluding to “the gospel” and racism and race baiting. So, something happens on the way to the 5pm show. That something, as fairly educated Americans can deduce, is the “Show” found out about her resignation. And probably that the whole tape was taken out of context. You see, Sherrod was relating an incident from some 24 years prior. Sherrod then goes on to explain that she had an epiphany that switching the “master/slave” roles with the white Farmer was wrong. Brietbart realizes he has been “had”, probably set up by the NAACP. But all along Brietbart’s main focus was not on Sherrod, it was on the audience of NAACPers, who were hooting and hollering at Sherrod’s racist and class warfare beginnings. Beck had jumped the shark into the whole Sherrod as main focus, Sherrod as “collective salvation” in theory.

What really is astonishing to me, is Beck on O’Reilly. Beck claims he never ran any story on Sherrod. Beck at his humblest, allows O’Reilly to lavish him with omnipotence, sharing that “he was in his office, and something just didn’t feel right..” as if Beck and that direct line to God gave him advanced knowledge to speaketh not on Sister Shirley, and with O’Reilly’s heartfelt admiration at once again, being ahead of the curve. Beck’s face couldn’t hold back his pride in the O’Reilly glory. And what about Beck’s “advance knowledge” of so many issues, such as the famous Soros Chalkboard, SEIU, and a number of stories he seems to have taken credit? Matthew Boyle, of the Daily Caller wrote this in April 2011:

By any standard, Beck seems unusually reliant on the work of others, and unusually reluctant to credit it. In an interview with TheDC, Roger L. Simon, CEO of Pajamas Media, suggested that Beck has committed the journalistic equivalent of a notorious crime. “It is not a question of just doing it right the majority of the time. It is a question of doing it right always,” Simon said. “Doris Kearns Goodwin is forever a fraud in my estimation because she has been caught plagiarizing once. If you rob a bank once, you still robbed a bank.” (see full article link below)

The article is quite disturbing. It goes on:

Mandy Nagy, a conservative blogger known online as Liberty Chick, spent untold hours last fall creating a chart that tracks left-wing billionaire George Soros’s influence over media organizations, only to see it appear, in its exact form and without any attribution, on Beck’s famous chalkboard. “We were laughing that he went to all the trouble of [recreating] the visual on the blackboard,” Nagy said, not sounding entirely amused.

And this is just plain wrong:

Cliff Kincaid, the director of Accuracy in Media’s Center for Investigative Journalism, had a similar experience. In the fall of 2009, Beck’s producers promised him a spot on Beck’s television show to talk about his investigation of the Soros-funded Free Press. After several long conversations with Beck’s producers, however, the invitation evaporated and Beck did the show alone, using Kincaid’s research as his own.

“It’s hard to get an explanation as to why these things happen except they [Beck’s producers] told me Glenn wanted to handle the issue himself, which means he wanted to appear to be the expert,” Kincaid told TheDC. “It’s his show, and he’s got a right to do that, but it is disconcerting that those of us who work hard on these issues and gather a lot of information expect to get some credit for what we’ve done.”

On the video link below, caution, I did not make the tape…but it is the most concise work of all the issues here. Toward the end of the video it gets to be somewhat nauseating, Beck is at a Christian Business Meeting, (Kansas City) and he is preaching his Sherrod Miracle, yes, he is preaching loudly how the Lord hath spareth him the trap of the Sherrod.

On “the Victory Sessions” with Stephen K. Bannon, (Sunday Dec 18th 2011), Breitbart is once again putting Beck back into the “hot seat” over Beck’s statement on Judge Napalitano’s show were he said that Obama and Newt were both “Progressives” and that Tea Party people voting for Newt must be for the only real difference, “Race”. I found it to be more like a ploy, but regardless some Tea Party Patriots across the Country are more than miffed.

What a small world we live in, so small its hard to imagine the real sacrifice Journalists make in other Countries. One report from today states that over two hundred Journalists have been murdered in Russia since KGBer Putin came into his reign. How many Professional Journalists and Citizen Journalists would be willing to risk our lives daily, knowing when we tell the Truth, the consequence is probable death at some point. The Truth is not an easy thing, and its not a tag line. Russia knows how important the Press is, and the Press there is tantamount to any real chance they have at spreading the Truth.

Two hundred lives, willing to die, not for money, not for power. Having their Countrymen armed with the Truth, people will stand up. Banded together in knowledge that no matter what evil may come, they stand for Liberty against Tyranny. This they know. There is no weapon stronger, it sets you free.

Beck Video (from eyesonfox @YT) Glenn Beck on Sherrod….

Matthew Boyle’s article http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/18/thedc-exclusive-conservatives-hit-beck-for-taking-content-without-attribution/

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Big Government, Commentary, Corruption, Media, News Stories, Politics, Race Relations, Religion, Russia Tagged With: Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, Shirley Sherrod, TEA Party

ShareThis

Occupy LA hosts rant on Anti-Capitalism from Anti-Israel Cop Killer Supporter

December 11, 2011 By Rebecca Diserio Leave a Comment

Margleafletfotoforweb_1-medium

Margaret Prescod

Say it isn’t so. I wish I could. Occupy Los Angeles is being co-opted by the likes of those who would make your hair curl, head spin, and lose your lunch all at the same time. To be “fair” I do not think all “Occupiers” really know what message it sends to the millions of Americans who are watching. That being said, Occupy LA has hosted Van Jones, who talked as if “they” (meaning Jones and the Occupiers) are on the same team, and Van seems to be talking as if he is in charge.

We all know of Jones being a member of the Communist Party, and as of late a one time “Czar” for the Green Agenda for the Obama Administration. Van the Man is just one of the usual suspects though, no news there. He announced his “American Dream” (Nightmare) coalition way back in February. Which is on the internet under the “Move-On.Org” internet address. No, its not surprising he also called for the “Occupy the Ports”. He has been waiting for a good riot since his experience during the Rodney King riots, he is on record as being so disappointed that riot didn’t spread nationwide. Jones, is a hard line Communist, wanting Revolution. And he also doesn’t mind the possible violence which will have to come for their “transformation” to occur. Along with Occupy New York Frances Fox Piven attendee, Jones and Piven have both been calling for what they call “Revolution”, which really is a “Riot” for years. I say this, because so many today romanticize “Revolution” as they yell “this is what democracy looks like”. No, as Jones wrote after the Rodney King Riots:

I cried because at that Moment — when some Great Revolutionary Leader was supposed to have emerged from the crowd, grabbed the megaphone, spoken to our hearts and hopes, set out our program to overthrow the old order and build a new one — nobody had anything to say.

Jones was in Oakland area, and he was marching around, he says, with people lighting fires, smashing car windows, you know, the usual pillaging. That was the moment! And it was good, exciting, the time had come! All they needed was a Great Revolutionary Leader, with a megaphone. Never fear, Americans. He got the mike at Occupy LA. And he is “on fire”.

Margaret Presod, is a local Radio Host on KPFK Los Angeles. She is also a part of Occupy LA, as she says. Margaret as you will hear on the video (link below) is a big member of “Global Women’s Strike”. Global Women’s Strike, supports the Anti-Israel agenda. I was appalled to see what the Palestinian government has in its schools for education. In a Math class, a word problem…”If you have 13 Jews and you kill 8, how many do you have?” For more graphic reading of the system, go to this link here: http://www.palwatch.org.

Margaret has been a long time supporter and interviewed Cop Killer, Mumia Abu Jamal, who killed Officer Daniel Faulkner of the Philadelphia Police Department. Prescod’s station even hosted Jamal allowing him to do “radio” from behind bars. This case grabbed National headlines as the radical Left of Hollywood and the extremists saw Jamal, who was a known Black Panther Party associate, as a perfect poster boy for a new politically correct cop hating campaign. There is also Margaret’s other “friend” Erika Huggins, who was jailed for 2 years, also a Black Panther Party member from the 1960′s. She is teaching Women’s Studies back East now.

I don’t think its a stretch to say Ms. Prescod is a big time “Eco-feminist” her rant is religiously slanted to Gaia Worship (the Earth is Mother Goddess and puts animals on the same level as humans, even trees. This is their god, make no mistake, just look it up, kinda scary. Global Warming hoax was proven (again) last week with Climategate 2.0)

She has been a professional activist as has Piven and Jones for years. These three are prime examples of how the Radical Left is taking over the mind of the Occupiers, or maybe they are exactly what the Occupiers want, filing their heads with sugar plums of Revolution forgetting to mention how many die at the end of this whole movie. Yea, and I hope you all look good in gray, see the USSR fashion shows circa 1917.

I say “professional” activists because these people want the complete overthrow of the whole American Culture. Yea, let’s call it what it is. America was founded on the principle of freedom. These people are well on the record of the radical Socialistic Maoist beliefs, where as Mao says “, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” This qoute comes from Mao’s “Little Red Book”, a book which Cop Killer Mumia Abu Jamal used to pass around. Funny how small the “Barrel of a Gun” club gets.

Good luck Occupiers. (just call it “Anti-greed, kids, no propaganda or brainwashing going on, MIC CHECK!! or should I say “Reality Check?”)

Occupy LA Margaret Prescod rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hAWmCJbqwY

Filed Under: Big Government, Commentary, Corruption, Global Warming, Green Movement, Liberals, Middle East, Money, OWS, Race Relations, Socialism Tagged With: Anti-Israel, Barrel of a Gun, Daniel Faulkner, Margaret Prescod, Van Jones

ShareThis

Contrasting World Views

December 2, 2011 By Nancy Salvato Leave a Comment

Thomas Jefferson outlined the philosophy of our nation’s government in the Declaration of Independence with the words,

“All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Make no mistake; this is the philosophy on which our fundamental law is based. The goals for our government, which are listed in the preamble to our constitution, are intended to secure these unalienable rights.

“In Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”

If the electors and elected officials of our country do not honor our covenant

“We the People…[who] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…”

And if they choose not to uphold the blessings of liberty, then

“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government.”

What happens if the electorate and elected officials of our country do not understand the covenant, or what if they choose not to subscribe to the mission? What if the goals of our electorate are not aligned with the fundamental law set down by the Founders and Framers? What if the policy on which our representatives vote and implement is at odds with the philosophy on which our government was founded?

The sad truth is that not all those who (would) hold public office or vote for elected officials understand or respect the covenant that is made between the people and written into our nation’s Constitution. The average citizen, when not provided a thorough education in the philosophy and history that led to this country’s founding documents, may not recognize when the goals of a candidate for elected office are inconsistent with the covenant. On the other hand, a citizen well educated in this country’s fundamental law may very well comprehend that because this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it is not to be changed lightly by those elected to power just because they believe they know better than the Founders and Framers and consider our fundamental law antiquated. However, the seemingly educated person may still advocate this idea of a living constitution. Why?

At the very least, the citizenry of this country should understand the framework of our government before playing a role in voting into office those who may be inadvertently or actively trying to dismantle it. Voters should recognize the opposing goals of the progressive movement, which advocate that our government should take on any and all social and economic ills and that our Constitution is a living document with no permanent guiding principles, malleable in order to change with the times.

Johnathan O’Neill, Associate Professor of History at Georgia Southern University and the author of Originalism in American Law and Politics: A Constitutional History, writes,

“Progressives typically rejected the foundational American principles of natural rights and limited government for their own understanding of “progress,” defined as governmental experts’ management of social change toward an ever more just and essentially socialist future.”

Three well known progressives, John Dewey, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Woodrow Wilson exemplify the progressive agenda.

John Dewey, the patriarch of education in this country, declared,

“Schools had a duty to condition children for life in the desired ‘social order.’ Teachers, said Dewey, must stress ‘mutually helpful living’ in order to indoctrinate youngsters in the philosophy of collectivism. Dewey called for a diminished emphasis on facts, knowledge, and real-world skills—and for replacing the ‘Whole conception of school discipline” with “a spirit of social cooperation and community life.’”

According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court,

“It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for the crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

President Woodrow Wilson believed,

“Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and practice, ‘meaning that they, like society itself, must develop’ over time. ‘[A]ll that progressives ask or desire,’ said Wilson ‘is permission’ – in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution’ is the scientific word – to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.’ To guide society along this path, said Wilson, society need a ‘true leader’ who could stir the passions of the masses and use them like ‘tools.’ ‘Men are as clay in the hand of the consummate leader,’ he said.”

President Obama is a Progressive, Hillary Clinton is a Progressive, and there is a Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives which…

“Abjures ‘economic inequality,’ ‘income and wealth disparities,’ and ‘the concentration of wealth.’ Conversely, it advocates socialized medicine, radical environmentalism, the redistribution of wealth, and higher rates of taxation to be borne chiefly by middle- to high- income households. Historically, the Progressive Caucus has had ties to the Democratic Socialists of America.”

Progressive ideals are manifested in direct primaries, initiative and referendum, the redistribution of “private property under the banner of social justice,” and evolution toward statism through the infiltration of “society’s power structure and its key institutions – the schools, the media, the churches, the entertainment industry, the labor unions, and the three branches of government.”

Again, citing Jonathan O’Neill,

“Progressives may be contrasted with Constitutional Conservatives, those who advocate natural rights, limited government, equal rights for all and special privileges for none, and republicanism, not democracy.”

What is lost when progressives implement their agenda? The notion that “all men are created equal” is now missing, replaced with a class system that divides the public into “the best and brightest” vs. “retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained.”

Angelo M. Codevilla, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, writes,

“After Barack Obama described his opponents’ clinging to “God and guns” as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said “what everybody knows is true.”

Progressives do not align themselves with any one political party.

At the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, the Keynote Speaker, Glenn Beck explained,

“Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To progress past the Constitution. It is in the Republicans and the Democrats.”

Clarifying the difference between a Progressive and a Communist, Beck states,

“Revolution or evolution, that’s the difference. Revolution or evolution. Well, there’s no difference except one requires a gun and the other does it slowly, piece by piece, eating away at it.”

Founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, The John Birch Society, one of the decade’s most controversial right-wing organizations (perhaps as controversial as Glenn Beck has been painted) charged,

“The Progressive era, which expanded the federal government’s role in curbing social and economic ills, was a dire period in our history, and Woodrow Wilson “more than any other one man started this nation on its present road to totalitarianism.”

Glenn Beck and the John Birch Society, both painted as extreme right wing, have influenced the Tea Party movement which is now being demonized as the same. But is this hyperbole or is there any legitimacy to the criticism and mudslinging they have had to endure?

Are “the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communication Commission’s fairness doctrine in editorial broadcasting, the federal government’s change of the gold standard in currency, all subsidies to farmers, all federal aid to education, all federal social welfare, foreign aid, social security, elimination of public school prayer and Bible reading, and (that familiar right-wing nemesis) the United Nations,” (IBID) legitimate targets of Constitutional Conservative criticism? If so, then is the word extreme an adjective that aptly describes the subjects of this accusation? Or is it easier to delegitimize the messenger than the message?

Political parties have come, evolved or gone in these United States, i.e., Federalist Party, Anti-Federalist Party, Democratic-Republican Party, Whig Party, and the list goes on. No longer can one accurately describe his or herself as a Republican or a Democrat. Both electors and elected officials must be defined as adhering more closely to constitutional conservative principles or progressive ideology. Candidates for office must be individually vetted for adherence to fundamental law or the progressive belief that ours is a “living constitution.” However, most important is that electors must understand what being a Constitutional Conservative or Progressive means and what it means for our country in the long term. Without this understanding, we may vote into the annals of history our republican form of government without truly understanding what we had or what there is to lose.

Filed Under: 2012 Elections, Big Government, Corruption, Politics, Socialism, Socialism, United Nations Tagged With: americanism, Constitution, Freedom, Liberty, progressive, progressivism, world view

ShareThis

When Did Honesty Become Optional?

CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE CRY LIVES ARE AT RISK!! RACISM, SEXISM…

Counterfeit Conservatives – Newt Romney

Raiding of the Treasury to Bribe the Irresponsible

America’s Dark Mood

Yes Virginia The Internet Does NOT Replace Old Fashioned Politics

Breitbart vs Beck, It’s 4th & Goal Truth Time

Occupy LA hosts rant on Anti-Capitalism from Anti-Israel Cop Killer Supporter

Contrasting World Views

Donate

eNews and Updates

Recent Posts

Emerging Corruption Media Appearances and Press Releases

Featured Video

Featured Book

Tweet Blender

Blogroll

Recent Comments

Meta