Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Marxist’

Clinton/Obama cronies behind Bundy showdown

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/clintonobama-cronies-behind-bundy-showdown/#XBYjO3ZhO227BIfy.99

High-level Democrats positioned to profit from ‘green’ projects

Published: 1 day ago

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman and former economist and budget analyst for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Best-known for his exposé on the Cloward Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, Simpson’s work provided background for Glenn Beck’s groundbreaking TV series on the subject. He is a frequent guest on radio talk shows and is featured in Curtis Bowers’ award winning documentary “Agenda: Grinding America Down.”

After a weeklong confrontation between protesters and armed agents of the Bureau of Land Management, events at the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., came to an abrupt end Saturday when the BLM suddenly threw in the towel and left.

Speaking to a local TV news program Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declared: “This isn’t over.” And he is certainly correct. The showdown between BLM and Cliven Bundy – the last rancher in Clark County, Nev. – was but the latest battle in a long-running conflict.

Supposedly at issue was the desert tortoise, a reptile on the endangered species list that purportedly could not coexist on the land with Bundy’s cattle. But why, many asked, would the turtle suddenly be threatened by animals it had cohabited with for the 100-plus years the Bundy ranch has been in operation?

A BLM document unearthed last week discusses mitigation strategies for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, just southwest of the Bundy ranch. The “mitigation strategy” proposed to use the grazing lands near the Bundy ranch as a kind of sanctuary for the desert tortoise, because the entire region is slated for a large number of solar, wind and geothermal energy generation facilities.

The solar projects will obliterate most of the turtle’s natural habitat.

Bloggers quickly made a connection between the effort to remove Bundy’s cattle and a solar energy project in Southern Nevada financed by the communist Chinese energy firm ENN. It was to be the largest solar farm in the U.S.

Reid had lobbied heavily for the company’s business, even traveling to China. Reid’s son, Rory Reid, formerly a Clark County commissioner, became a lobbyist for ENN, and the Senate majority leader’s former senior adviser, Neil Kornze, now leads the BLM.

But the solar energy complex financed by the communist Chinese was not at the heart of the Bundy Ranch fiasco after all. The project died last year.

However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.

He was at the work site on March 21 to help break ground on the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar Project. A close inspection of the project reveals why there is so much interest in the area and why the BLM, presumably at Reid’s urging through his former aide, Kornze, is so intent on getting Bundy off the land.

The leaseholder for the project is K Road Power, LLC, a New York City-based energy company. An examination of its website finds the business development manager to be none other than Jonathan Magaziner.

Magaziner was formerly an associate at the Clinton Climate Initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation. He is also the son of Ira Magaziner, former senior policy adviser for President Bill Clinton. The elder Magaziner now works for the Clinton Foundation on health and environment issues. There are likely other connections to Democratic insiders.

But that is not all. A company called First Solar is listed on a BLM renewable energy project map of southern Nevada, one of 11 sited in Clark County. Additionally, the map shows six wind projects in Clark County and also lists the K Road Moapa project under “transmission projects.” In other words, there is a lot more going on than media have reported.

First Solar investors comprise a who’s who of Democratic insiders, including major Obama campaign bundlers, billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, Al Gore, Ted Turner and Goldman Sachs. First Solar’s CEO is Michael Ahearn, former fundraiser for both Obama and Harry Reid.

First Solar has at least three other solar projects in California. So it becomes apparent why the BLM, Reid and many other interested parties have such an intense interest in the desert tortoise.

The lucrative business opportunities explain both why Cliven Bundy has been facing such intense intimidation and why all the other ranchers have been chased out. Bundy represents a financial threat not merely to Reid, but a whole gamut of Democrats tied to Obama, Clinton and Gore.

This is what has been discovered by examining only a few of the 50-plus projects. Doubtless there are similar stories behind some, if not all, of the others.

If Democrat-linked entrepreneurs plan to turn the West into a massive arena for green projects, the implications are disturbing. The projects will eventually go as all others have gone before: failing as the unsustainable costs, maintenance problems and unseen environmental catastrophes they create become intolerable. The true goal of “green” energy, say cynics, is to make these people wealthier, not to save the environment.

Whether that turns out to be the case or not, the Bundy story needs far greater and deeper media scrutiny.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Did professor advocate censorship of conservative student newspaper?

Todd’s American Dispatch

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/15/did-professor-advocate-censorship-conservative-student-newspaper/

By Todd Starnes

Published April 15, 2014

FoxNews.com

University of Minnesota at Morris biology professor Dr. Paul Zachary Myers doesn’t like young Republicans. In fact, he called them “assholes.”

“That’s what they are,” Myers told me in a telephone interview on Friday. “I think they’ve amply demonstrated it is accurate.”

And he also doesn’t like The Morris North Star, a conservative student publication that routinely draws the ire of liberals at the University Minnesota at Morris.

After the professor’s diatribe was published, approximately 350 copies of The North Star were stolen from campus distribution bins, the Alliance Defending Freedom alleges. They estimate the theft cost the newspaper $1,750.

“I said it was a terrible, terrible paper and they university should not be endorsing it,” Myers said.

But attorneys for the student newspaper are alleging Myers broke the law when they say he wrote a blog post on his personal blog urging people to throw away the publication.

The Alliance Defending Freedom has accused Myers, an associate professor in the school’s biology program, of encouraging people to steal and throw away a copy of the November 22nd edition of the newspaper.

That particular edition included a satire on affirmative action. The professor said the paper was mocking minority students.

“I would advocate the disposal of their flyers if the Ku Klux Klan started papering our campus, and likewise, the North Star has worn out its welcome and must go,” the professor wrote. “Treat their scattered papers as hate-filled trash and dispose of it appropriately.”

Myers went on to call the student editors of the publication “wingnutty” and even took a swipe at Fox News.

“We do have conservative students here – I expect that the majority are more conservative than I am – but they also trend towards being more the reasonable, rational, educate sort of conservative,” he wrote. “Not the kind you’ll see on Fox News, and most unfortunately, not the kind who are likely to get elected to the Republican party.”

Oh yeah – he also called the conservative youngsters “assholes-in-training.”

After the professor’s diatribe was published, approximately 350 copies of The North Star were stolen from campus distribution bins, the Alliance Defending Freedom alleges. They estimate the theft cost the newspaper $1,750.

Myers told me he had nothing to do with the disappearance of the newspapers.

“I suggested the university needed to get rid of them,” he said. “I have done absolutely nothing to squelch their ability to publish their terrible little rag.”

And last January, The North Star published an issue that included a pro-life story. As many as 100 copies of the newspaper were later found defaced.

The newspaper staff contacted university officials about both incidents –but so far – the university has remained silent.

ADF attorney Kevin Theriot is calling on the university to not only condemn the theft and destruction, but also investigate the incidents.

“The university must take steps to protect The North Star and all other student publications from such viewpoint-based censorship in the future,” Theriot said in a prepared statement.

Theriot also had some choice words to say about Professor Myers.

“Professor Myers has betrayed that public trust by his advocacy of censorship,” he said, accusing the professor of chilling free speech by “advocating that people steal the paper and throw it in the trash.”

For the record, no one has been charged with a crime. And the university sent me a two-sentence statement saying they were reviewing ADF’s claims and “will respond in due course.”

ADF said the most troubling aspect of the incident is UMM’s silence.

“A public university is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where free thought and discourse flourish,” ADF wrote in a letter to the university. “By failing to take swift action to denounce the theft and defacing of a newspaper, UMM is teaching students that the appropriate response to ideas you disagree with is to censor or destroy those ideas.”

One would think that a university campus would be a bit more tolerant of opposing viewpoints. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine UMM professors advocating for an old-fashioned book burning. They could use a copy of the First Amendment as fire starter.

ADF said Professor Myers may express his opinion about the newspaper. However, the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not protect government officials when they incite illegal activity, “engage in viewpoint discrimination, confiscate property without notice, and seize The North Star’s property.”

Perhaps Professor Myers should remember that – the next time he decides to open his orifice.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter, be sure to join his Facebook page, and follow him on Twitter. His latest book is “God Less America”.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Thought police on patrol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/2014/04/10/2608a8b2-c0df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_print.html

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: April 10

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.

Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just 10 days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.

Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.

The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.

Closed to debate. Open only to intimidated acquiescence.

To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.

Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.

Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement on the free exercise of religion. Others on the simpler (nontheological) grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values. Under the new law, everything is covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say, antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?

Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”

Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal. What these new laws do is relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit, they need only to show that women make less in that workplace .

Like the White House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?

That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a reflection of experience, work history, etc.? But just to raise such questions is to betray heretical tendencies.

The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing. Oppose the current consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people.

Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.

Read more on this topic: Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’ Ruth Marcus: Democrats’ revolting equal-pay demagoguery Dana Milbank: Republicans kiss votes from women goodbye Deval Patrick: Gay marriage and the right to be ordinary

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Common Core Lesson Teaches that America is a Racist Nation

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/08/common-core-lesson-teaches-that-america-is-a-racist-nation/

April 8, 2014 By Jennifer Burke

The United States Constitution gives no authority to the federal government over education. In fact, since education is not listed as an enumerated power within the authority of the federal government, by law, the authority of education is left in the hands of state and local governments. But, that has not stopped the federal government from attempting to get their grubby hands all over the education of youth.

Ever since the establishment of the Department of Education by then President Jimmy Carter, we have witnessed states scrambling to meet the requirements as set forth by the feds. Republican presidents have even infringed on the state’s authority over education. A prime example is George W. Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ law.

With the introduction of Common Core ‘standards’, schools around the nation have witnessed not only a decline in the academic standards expected of children under the guise of improving problem solving skills, but we have seen numerous examples of children being exposed to very disturbing and dangerous lessons.

Much has been made of the nonsensical Math lessons courtesy of Common Core and the elimination of the great classics of literature in favor of informative, progressive pieces. However, one lesson that should concern Americans comes courtesy of Barack Obama himself. His biography has been, not surprisingly, designated as an approved piece of Common Core literature. As a result, 4^th graders in some parts of America are being taught a narrative as reality that we have witnessed the President and his lackey media push over the last 5 years. Our children are being taught that America is, at its core, a racist nation.

This shouldn’t come as a great surprise since one can’t disagree with the policies or actions of Barack Obama without being labeled as a racist or bigot. But, this indoctrination of our youth should have Americans everywhere worried.

The story was initially underreported last fall, so it bears bringing to the forefront again. The website BeforeItsNews.com reported on this disturbing revelation.

Children at Bluffview Elementary who have been assigned to read the book, entitled “Barack Obama,” published by Lerner Publications and a part of Scholastic’s “Reading Counts” program, were informed on page 40 that despite Obama being a “nice fellow,” many allegedly believed that no white American would vote for him in 2008 based solely on the color of his skin.

“But some people said Americans weren’t ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president,” the book reads.

The book, approved for children as young as seven years old, also goes on to specifically mention controversial comments made by President Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright, while also claiming that the president has worked to bring whites and blacks together.

The book’s comments were brought to the attention of the “Moms Against Duncan” Facebook page, a group of parents and education activists opposed to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who recently claimed that “white suburban moms” only opposed Common Core because it showed that their children weren’t as smart as they thought, attempting to paint the nation-wide backlash against the curriculum as a race based issue.

“Would it have been possible for him to be elected (twice) without the support of vast numbers of white Americans?” one member stated.

The book appears to follow the viewpoint that all opposition to the president is based purely on race, which has reached near-comedic levels in its absurdity. Some are now even claiming that opposition to Obamacare is pure racism, despite 55 percent of the public being opposed to its disastrous roll out as millions get dropped from their current providers.

Be aware of what is being taught in your neighborhood schools. This type of dangerous indoctrination can have serious effects on the mindset of our youth and the direction of this country.

Category:

Education

Tagged with:

HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA: The Exclusion of Equal Rights

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/the-exclusion-of-equal-rights/#u3ILphchZpHkfizI.99

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow ponders ‘gay’ and lesbian inability to ‘reproduce their species’

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. His latest book is “Black Yellowdogs.” He was the long-time co-host of CBN’s “The 700 Club” television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.

In the words of one American president (whom many remember, one way or another), “Let me make this perfectly clear …” the homosexual community is not striving for equal rights, they are driving for special rights applicable only to them, to the exclusion of equal rights for others.

A prime example of that is what recently happened to the CEO of Mozilla Firefox (an Internet browser that I am removing from my computer today). Apparently, he committedthe horrifically “anti-gay” act of donating $1,000 to support Proposition 8 in 2008. Proposition 8 took the apparently viciously anti-homosexual position that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Gasp! How dare they?! Of course, in other rulings, liberal judges have decided that only homosexuals – not Christians – are entitled to their beliefs and opinions (but we won’t mention the 33 other states with laws similar to Proposition 8 in place and the 52 percent of Californians who supported the constitutional amendment).

You will notice from reading, watching or listening to our totally unbiased mainstream media that only homosexuals are allowed to freely express their deeply held opinions. People who dare to have any reservations about making bedroom behavior a standard for morality are immediately assigned “right-wing nut-case” status. Christians are not allowed to hold to transcendent biblical principles that proffer such old-fashioned, outmoded concepts as marriage being between a man and woman, and bedroom behavior being a private matter. If you want to sleep with your cocker spaniel while dressed in flaming yellow fluorescent pajamas on bright green bed sheets, that is your choice, but don’t impose that on me.

Let us clarify something, and let us, like them, leave the Bible completely out of the discussion. Purely for the sake of this argument, let us accept evolution as real and the controlling factor in human development. Evolution teaches that something evolved from something and became something – us. Consequently, sex, or the breeding of species by male and female of a particular species, produces offspring. This is “natural” and cannot be circumvented except by “unnatural” means. In other words, according to science (and please pardon a biblical reference), everything reproduces “after its own kind.”

Take mules, for instance. Mules are not an evolutionary byproduct; they are “created” by injecting the sperm of a male jackass into a female horse (a mare) by natural or medical means. The result of this crossbreeding produces the mule, a sterile creature that cannot reproduce itself, even though male and female mules exist (something to do with chromosomes and stuff like that). Everything that occurs “naturally” in nature can, all things being equal, reproduce itself.

Now, consider human beings. There are those who today still object strenuously to interracial marriage. They are convinced that, while extramarital or purchased sex may be permitted in secret, marriage should be strictly confined to “like marrying like.” White should marry whites, blacks-blacks, yellows-yellows, etc. There are even Christian churches (so-called) who vehemently object to, and refuse to perform, such “ungodly” unions. (But, I forgot, we are supposed to leave God and the Bible out of the discussion.)

OK, as “Mom” (the mother of a dear friend of mine), a lovely – dare I say it – white woman, used to say, “Here’s what do.”

Pro-homosexual advocates would have us believe that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon and should be accepted as such. So, “here’s what do.” Since, according to its advocates, homosexuality is a normally occurring phenomenon, then nature should support it with naturally occurring actions. Granted, I am not a scientist, so I will defer to the reader’s judgment in this matter.

Here is the scientific experiment:

A) Mix, and maroon, any number of black, white, red, yellow, brown men and women on a deserted island in the Pacific and come back 30 years later.

B) Do exactly the same with an equal number of homosexual males, or lesbian females, and maroon them (separately) on deserted islands in the Atlantic, and come back 30 years later.

What would you find?

If homosexuality and lesbianism are naturally occurring phenomena, and everything reproduces “after its own kind,” then there should be a population increase in both Atlantic and Pacific islanders. If not, then one of the groupings violates “natural law,” evolution’s process of reproducing after its own kind. If homosexuality/lesbianism is “natural,” then like all other species, they should, within the arena of sexual activity, reproduce their species.

But then, as I earlier confessed, I am not a scientist, so I must be content with my own nonscientific judgment. Homosexuality is not “natural.”

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact media@wnd.com.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

I Just Uninstalled FIREFOX Because of the Following Report. How About You?

Mozilla Chief Learns, if You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, You Don’t Deserve a Job

http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2014/04/04/mozilla-chief-learns-if-you-dont-support-gay-marriage-you-dont-deserve-a-job-n1818885/page/full

Todd Starnes | Apr 04, 2014

As we enter this golden age of tolerance and diversity, the nation’s gay rights community is sending a warning message to Americans: If you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job.

Apparently, Brendan Eich did not get that message. He’s the former chief executive officer at Mozilla, the technology group that gave us the Firefox Web browser.

Eich resigned under a firestorm of controversy after it was revealed he had donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that protected traditional marriage.
It’s unclear who outed Eich. But that really doesn’t matter. Once his donation was revealed, supporters of gay marriage launched all-out war.

The Wall Street Journal reported that OKCupid, the popular online dating website, asked its followers to stop using Firefox. The wireless company Credo Mobile gathered more than 50,000 signatures on a petition calling for Eich to resign.

OKCupid posted a letter denouncing the Mozilla CEO, The New York Times reported.

“Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure,” the letter stated.

Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property?

Why not take away their right to vote?

Why not take away their children?

Why not just throw them in jail?

Why not force them to work in chain gangs?

Why not call for public floggings?

Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.

Eich won’t say he was forced to resign, but based on the company’s press release, it’s safe to say his days were numbered.

“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote in a statement;

“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”

She went on to opine about freedom of speech and equality. In her estimation, one trumps the other.

“Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” she wrote. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

No, not really, Ms. Baker. Our Founding Fathers sort of worked that out in the Bill of Rights.

I write about this very issue in my upcoming book, “God Less America.” There are pages and pages filled with stories of workers and business owners who’ve either lost their jobs or faced public floggings for their support of traditional marriage.

The left does not believe people who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to engage in the democratic process. And they have a proven track record of intimidating and bullying those who do.

Just ask Angela McCaskill, the chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University. She was suspended after she signed a petition in her church to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.

Just ask Scott Eckern, the former artistic director of California Musical Theatre. He resigned under pressure after he gave money to support Prop 8. As one activist told The New York Times, “I do believe there comes a time when you cannot sit back and accept what I think is the most dangerous form of bigotry.”

Just ask our nation’s top military officials. They were called into President Obama’s office and told that if they could not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should resign their commissions.

“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked at all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” said Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp in remarks reported by Buzzfeed.

The road to political correctness is littered with the bodies of folks like Brendan Eich sideswiped by the tolerance and diversity bus.

I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.

I know this may sound old-fashioned, but gainful employment should not be determined by where you put your reproductive organs.

Tolerance is a b*tch, ain’t it?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

THE MOST IMPORTANT REPORT YOU WILL READ TODAY: America, Revolution is at hand

Reported by Matt Barber

on 29 March, 2014 at 19:00

http://barbwire.com/2014/03/29/america-revolution-hand/#o0mfQlHEaD2KYxki.99

A preferred ploy of left-wing change agents is to ridicule critics when they point out the undeniable parallels between the goals of today’s “progressive” movement, to include the Democratic Party in general, and the goals of the early, and very much still alive, communist movement.

If, for instance, one mentions the historical fact that nearly every adult who, at any time, was in any position of influence over a young, soon-to-be-radicalized Barry Soetoro was an avowed communist, to include his own parents, then one is immediately mocked and dismissed as a neo-McCarthyite hack pining for the bygone days of the Red Scare. This is an evasive, ad hominem strategy employed by those who are caught, for lack of a better word, red-handed.

To all this I say, if the jackboot fits, wear it. If it quacks like a commie and goose-steps like a commie, then a commie it is.

There are multiple layers within “progressivism’s” pseudo-utopian, truly dystopian Marxist philosophy. The left’s lust for redistributionist statism is well-known. Less understood, however, is the “progressive” rush toward cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism entails, among other things, that secularist aspect of left-wing statist ideology that seeks, within society, to supplant traditional values, norms and mores with postmodern moral relativism. Cultural Marxists endeavor to scrub America of her Judeo-Christian, constitutional-republican founding principles, and take, instead, a secular-statist Sharpie to our beloved U.S. Constitution.

Historian and U.S. military affairs expert William S. Lind describes cultural Marxism as “a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as ‘multiculturalism’ or, less formally, Political Correctness. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘multiculturalism.’”

Pastor, attorney and Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively is globally admired by liberty-loving traditionalists. Conversely, he’s universally reviled by cultural Marxists. He drills down a bit deeper: “Cultural Marxism is a variation of the Marxist strategy to build a utopian socialist order on the ashes of Christian civilization, but through subversion of the moral culture, especially the elimination of the natural family, rather than solely through destruction of capitalism.”

True though this may be, the ideological seeds of contemporary cultural Marxism nonetheless sprout from deep within the dead soil of historical communism. It is not economic redistributionism alone through which “progressives” seek to both “fundamentally transform America” and otherwise conquer the world, but, rather, and perhaps primarily, it is also through victory over the pejoratively tagged “social issues” (i.e., the sanctity of marriage, natural human sexuality and morality, ending the abortion holocaust, religious liberty, the Second Amendment and the like).

This is neither speculative nor hyperbolic. Both the historical record and the U.S. Congressional Record bear out this sinister reality. Regrettably, today’s “low-information voters” as Rush Limbaugh calls them – to include the useful idiots within the GOP’s “moderate” and libertarian wings – are simply too lazy, shortsighted or both to learn the facts.

“Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.

In 1963, U.S. Rep. A.S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read into the Congressional Record a list of “Current Communist Goals” as enumerated by Dr. Cleon Skousen in “The Naked Communist,” penned in 1958. I encourage you to read the whole list, but for now let’s focus on those goals that most closely align with the seditious agenda of America’s “progressive” movement. It’s actually most of them. Though Herlong was a Democrat, the list reads like today’s Democratic Party Platform.

How far has fallen the party of the jackass:

Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist [or, today, Islamic] affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist [or Islamic] domination.
Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
Do away with all loyalty oaths.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. (An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”)
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.”
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.”
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
Internationalize the Panama Canal.
Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

If achieving these specific communist goals was the final “progressive” step toward the larger goal of securing communist governance in America, then, tragically, “progressives” have realized that larger goal.

Look around. We are no longer the United States of America. We have become The Communist States of America.

Which means, for those who love liberty, revolution is once again at hand.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Left’s New Zero Tolerance Policy

Daniel J. Schmid

on 28 March, 2014 at 06:40

http://barbwire.com/2014/03/28/lefts-new-zero-tolerance-policy/#KgAJ89ji3h69Ctmj.99

The watchword of modern liberals is “tolerance.” Since when did this become our highest ideal and an expression of society’s core aim and belief? Without question, it certainly should not be — at least not under the current understanding of the word.

The fundamental problem with this otherwise decent notion becoming the gravamen of society is that, under current understanding, it is nothing more than a pretext for those claiming to be tolerant to impose outright hostility and explicit intolerance on those whom they have neither the inclination nor desire to tolerate. The examples of this are best understood in a specific context.

For those with sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a disordered, unnatural, and sinful behavior, i.e., a choice, these examples will be unsurprisingly and unfortunately familiar. Those who are diametrically opposed to a religious worldview — a worldview held by all major religions and representative of the Biblical truth accepted since time immemorial — simply cannot stand for anyone with any influence to embrace, express, or espouse a contrary view. Notably, these are the same individuals now preaching tolerance of all manner of deviant and disordered behavior. The frightening truth behind these examples is that they represent the most intolerant and indefensible worldview that has ever been presented in modern policy arguments, and it has been building for many years.

First, take the example of the tolerance-first crowd’s mandate for students who seek to become mental health professionals. In today’s “tolerant” world, they must subscribe to the notion that same-sex behaviors, attractions, and identity are to be accepted, affirmed, and encouraged, regardless of an individual client’s desires and self-identity.

In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, a Christian student pursuing a mental health counseling education was dismissed from the postgraduate program for her refusal to submit to a remediation program designed for nothing more than to impose the liberal officials’ view of “tolerance.” The remediation program included, among other things, attending gay pride parades, reading ten articles articulating a “tolerant” viewpoint, and submitting a two-page summary outlining her increasing “tolerance” from her participation in these mandated activities with homosexual activists. If the last one reminds you of being invited to self-criticize before the homosexual politburo, then you are not alone.

Indeed, this young woman’s university also mandated that she attend and thereby lend her personal imprimatur to a number of activities, including a “gay pride” parade, that are fundamentally at odds with her religious beliefs. After that, she was to outline the number of ways she previously displayed “intolerance” and provide her self-critique describing how she had wronged those whom she would never encounter. Does that sound like tolerance of all belief systems to you? Sure it does, unless, of course, your religious beliefs reflect Biblical truth. After all, the “tolerant” crowd simply cannot tolerate the “intolerance” handed down by a just and holy God.

Second, consider the current influx of legislation designed to remove all licensed mental health professionals from their profession if they fail to worship at the altar of “tolerance.” In California and New Jersey, the tolerance police have gone to extensive lengths to ensure that all viewpoints are acceptable in mental health counseling, unless, of course, that viewpoint accepts the fundamental principle of mental health counseling that the client has the right to self-determination. Indeed, the good ol’ tolerant folks in these states — and in a number of others now — are willing to subscribe to that age-old principle of self-determination only as long as the client’s goals are shared by the homosexual activists imposing these mandates.

Even when the client has unwanted same-sex attractions, these laws mandate that licensed mental health professionals ignore and reject the client’s wishes. After all, how can anyone have such goals in their counseling? Is that tolerance? The answer is simple: certainly not.

There is little doubt about the disturbing basis for these laws. Unfortunately for the tolerance police, the Keeton case came too late, and some mental health professionals were able to obtain licenses without being forced to attend remediation (read “reeducation”) programs or self-criticize before the homosexual politburo. So, what can the tolerance police do with those who received a license before they could be denied entrance into the profession? Well, in California and New Jersey, the answer is to categorize these licensed mental health professionals as “unprofessional,” and subject anyone who dares to mention that change is possible for those who sincerely seek it to professional discipline, including stripping them of their professional license. In other words, the tolerance police have decided that anyone espousing a contrary view is unworthy of the profession.

It would be one thing if scientific evidence supported such a claim, but this is simply not true. As Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association, has explained, he personally counseled hundreds of clients that were successful in reducing or eliminating their unwanted same-sex attractions. Indeed, Dr. Cummings explained that the basis for these laws is a “distortion of reality” and that such laws ignore patient choice. One would think with such a grand ideal of tolerating all views, those preaching it the loudest would accept other points of view on this issue. Nevertheless, as you have probably discovered, this has never been about tolerance, but rather about silencing dissent in a totalitarian manner.

Notwithstanding the substantial number of “intolerant” people who would be removed from the marketplace of ideas under the previous two solutions, there are still too many avenues for the intolerant to espouse their “hatred” and “bigotry.” So, what shall the tolerance police do with the few remaining intolerant among us who have not yet been silenced? Well, of course, demonize them and ignore their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. To handle this problem, the tolerance police have developed another solution: call these parents hateful, intolerant bigots unworthy of any parental rights — and take their children away.

This is not a hypothetical scenario to make a point, but is actually what the sponsor of the New Jersey legislation banning change counseling espoused openly about his motives. Assemblyman Tim Eustace, the sponsor of the bill, stated that any parents who would allow their child to obtain counseling to align their attractions and feelings with their religious beliefs are abusing their child, and the state should remove the child from the home. Of course, for those most tolerant among us, these children must be removed from these bigots’ homes lest Biblical truths continue to be taught.

The teaching of Biblical truths to the next generation is a serious problem for the tolerance police, and they intend to minimize it with another strategy: giving homosexual activists priority in the adoption process. Certainly any two loving people are capable of raising a child. Right? After all, as one of the “tolerant” among us, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry stated last year, “the children belong to us all.” Surely we cannot place those children in homes full of religious intolerance.

So, how do they effectuate providing children to those whose lifestyle choices have made natural procreation impossible? Well, quite simple: prohibit any religious entity from participating in the adoption system if they do not submit to the “tolerant” view that children should be placed in the homes of homosexuals.

Theoretical, this is not. The Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the oldest and most respected adoption agencies in the country, experienced this exact prohibition in recent years. When it refused to place children in the homes of homosexuals, a refusal deeply grounded in the religious teachings of the Catholic Church, the state refused to continue to grant that charitable organization a license to provide adoption services in Massachusetts. How better to provide those “tolerant” people with children to indoctrinate than to remove them from their abusive, religious parents and force them into the “tolerant” homes of those who will not “abuse” them with religious teaching. Never mind the fact that many of those “tolerant” homosexuals to whom these children will be provided will inflict tremendous abuse on the children.

In short, the false prophets of tolerance are now seeking to impose a new zero tolerance policy in the marketplace of ideas aimed at nothing more than silencing the views of anyone who will not bow to the altar of “tolerance.”

May God help us.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

GIRLS IN THE SHADOWS: Sex Trafficking, Abortion, Pornography, Drugs and Millions of Slaves

http://clashdaily.com/2014/03/girls-shadows-sex-trafficking-abortion-pornography-drugs-millions-slaves/#3IiF6w5ZDzlbP4LW.99

By Allan Erickson / 30 March 2014

Imagine a 12-year-old little girl, enticed by “friends” with the promise of a career in modeling, movies or show business. She is told she can make a great deal of money posing for “fashion” photos. Promises are made about riches and fame. Slowly she is lured into the world of pornography, drug abuse, and prostitution. And if she tries to escape she is drugged even more, beaten, imprisoned, and sometimes killed.

Little boys are victimized as well.

According to the Polaris Project, there may be as many as 27 million people enslaved by traffickers worldwide, one million of these, children, sold into the sex trade.

The connections between human trafficking, pornography, abortion and the drug trade are obvious. Keep in mind each is a business—-some legal, some illegal—-and each business generates enormous profits. Equally obvious, the use of drugs to lower inhibitions and enforce compliance is useful in recruiting slaves and promoting pornography, which is useful in developing new customers for the prostitution trade. Abortion feeds off all of it. After all, child sex slaves and prostitutes lose their profitability if pregnant.

The direct link between sex trafficking and government-financed abortion has been established by pro-life activists.

Excerpt:

In an undercover investigation, LiveAction sent actors into seven facilities, posing as a prostitute and pimp to inquire about Planned Parenthood’s services. During the conversation, they revealed that they were sex workers and even that they worked with girls as young as 14. According to the law, sex trafficking is considered a federal crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life. But Planned Parenthood didn’t comply with the law. Instead they offered support, secrecy and cover-up . . .

Lawlessness is the norm within Planned Parenthood. One former clinic director accuses the abortion provider of risky medical practices and financial malfeasance, insisting taxpayer dollars support abortion. Fraudulent claims for reimbursement from Medicaid is another accusation from a former Planned Parenthood director. Still another former director says Planned Parenthood regularly provided defective contraception, intentionally putting girls at risk of pregnancy in order to increase abortion revenue.

Of course supporters of Planned Parenthood stand against notification of parents prior to any abortion procedure on a minor. Can’t have parental rights trumping profits. No wonder the friends of Planned Parenthood resist efforts to educate women about the reality of human life in the womb, and the terrible damage done to women who suffer abortion. Abortion is a women’s health issue, a matter of reproductive rights, not harmful to women, and not the killing of innocent human life.

When government funds an organization conspiring with criminals to defraud taxpayers, and all of it supports the profit motives of abortionists, traffickers, pornographers and pimps, people have a right to be outraged and demand correction. This president and Democrats in power have long insisted Planned Parenthood receive government funding. They have turned a blind eye to the damage done by pornography, refusing to regulate it behind a false argument calling such regulation censorship. Democrats have promoted and instituted abortion on demand, financed by taxpayers. And can anyone say Democrats are serious about doing something about drug abuse when the push has always been legalization?

Conservatives, on the other hand, have stood against illegal drugs, prostitution, Planned Parenthood, abortion and the efforts throughout culture to hyper-sexualize everyone, youth especially.

In light of these realities, who do you think is truly against trafficking, and which party is actually engaged in a war on women?

Image: Courtesy of: http://womensstudiesjmu.wikispaces.com/Sex+Trafficking,+by+ Brianna+Bello+and+Hanna+Safford

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Anti-Gun Liberal Wants to Murder NRA Board Members

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/03/28/antigun-liberal-wants-to-murder-nra-board-members-n1815949/page/full

Michael Schaus | Mar 28, 2014

An anti-gun liberal talk-show host apparently wants to shoot NRA board members. But, before we talk about the precarious possibility of some imbalanced leftist abusing Second Amendment rights (that he fights against) we should get some background information. Georgia has recently passed some legislation (awaiting approval from the Governor) that would expand the state’s Concealed Carry law.

In short, the bill would broaden the locations that lawful concealed carry is permitted. Acceptable locations would be expanded to include churches, schools (Adam Lanza would not only be unwelcome – he’d probably be shot), airports (federal restrictions would still apply), bars (no drinking while carrying, “duh”), and some government offices. The Left has dubbed the bill as the “guns everywhere” bill… Which I really don’t see as a pejorative. In fact, I’m kinda jealous that people in Georgia will have the protected right to defend their life anywhere they go. I’m currently at the mercy of California implants calling themselves “Denver residents” (ugh).

Guns everywhere? (What are the home values like in Georgia?) We should rename this bill to the “Michael Schaus is welcome in Georgia” bill of 2014. The Left’s main objection appears to be that concealed-carry-permit-holders will be allowed in establishments that serve liquor. But, c’mon… We let people leave bars without first confiscating their car keys. It’s still going to be illegal to carry while drinking (again: “duh”), and being intoxicated with a firearm will continue to be a serious crime (not to mention that such actions are the definition of irresponsibility.)

I mean, really: If a designated driver feels like carrying a gun (because they will be sober, and responsible for everyone’s safety), why should they be forced to stand outside smoking cigarettes while their friends are enjoying one of the few perks of adulthood? I know I’d feel safer with a sober concealed carry holder around. In fact, I never go drinking without a designated driver and a concealed carry permit holder. After all: The point is to be safe.

But… Mike Malloy has helped me accept an moderate degree of gun control. And here’s why (hat-tip to NewsBusters):

This organization founded by Gabrielle Giffords, you remember her, the former Arizona congresswoman that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck suggested should be murdered, the one who was critically wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, she calls it ‘the most extreme gun bill in America.’

Whoa… Palin and Beck never asked for anyone to murder Giffords. Palin ran an ad “targeting” Democrats… Malloy, by the way, seems to skim over similar rhetoric employed by the Left. And, allowing law-abiding citizens the right to responsibly carry tools of self-defense isn’t exactly “extreme” when compared to the state of Connecticut confiscating people’s legally purchased firearms. But he went on:

The NRA, which they’re behind this of course, they want guns everywhere. Jesus Christ! I would like to invite one of the NRA board members, and I’ll be armed, let’s just get this over with, OK? Come on down to Georgia and I’ll be packing heat and you be packing heat or whether you want to or not, I don’t give a damn, it’s up to you…

I thought dueling went out of style… It turns out that our Liberal talk-show host, however, has no problem inviting political opponents to engage in dangerous illegal behavior. But, he soon jumped the gun-control shark:

And you come, meet me someplace, and all of a sudden, see, we have stand your ground here, and all of a sudden I’m going to feel real &*%$#@ threatened by you! And I will shoot you! If I feel threatened. The law says I can! Ha ha ha!

So… I think it’s pretty obvious: We should do away with concealed carry – for Liberals. After all, in Malloy’s hypothetical, the armed (or unarmed) NRA member is acting like a responsible, non-threatening, member of society. They are minding their own business. In fact, they carry a firearm as protection against the possibility that some psycho will randomly direct unwarranted violence in their general direction.

And then there’s Malloy… Who unmercifully is willing to do them harm. I don’t really see the NRA guy as the problem in this equation. (And what if the NRA board member was a black guy wearing a hoodie?) It seems to me, that the bigger problem is someone (ahem*Malloy*ahem) who feels justified in shooting someone else because they disagree on politics – which, by the way, is not covered under Georgia’s “stand your ground” law. (Last time I checked, feeling threatened by someone’s Constitutional right is not justification for murder.)

A concealed weapon is a hedge against the very violence that Malloy mockingly advocates. Heck, it’s a hedge against Giffords’ shooter, the Aurora movie theatre monster, and even Adam Lanza… Only a liberal with unbridled hate for dissenting opinions would see it as a tool for intimidation and violence.

So… Let’s pass a gun control law (which is a sentence I never imagined myself typing): “If you think guns are the incarnation or manifestation of unrepentant violence, you’re not allowed to purchase one.” Everyone else, on the other hand, should be able to carry everywhere they want (because, as it turns out, some of those Malloy-style psychopaths may not abide by the newly proposed SchausGunControlAct).

PS: I didn’t address the concept of guns in church… But that’s because I think it’s self-explanatory: My life is a gift from God. I’d like to think that he would approve of me defending it.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Who died before they collected Social Security?

THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500. Read that again. Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny? We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and me that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.

Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows). After 49 years of working you’d have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you’re 95 if you retire at age 65) and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn’t make my benefits some kind of charity or handout! Remember;

Congressional benefits?
Free healthcare?
Outrageous retirement packages?
67 paid holidays?
Three weeks paid vacation?
Unlimited paid sick days?

Now that’s welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements? They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.

Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?

It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Liberal Colleges Persecuting Conservatives AGAIN

http://eaglerising.com/5033/liberal-colleges-persecuting-conservatives/#GFy4BLCKa5oVof1f.99

By Onan Coca / 8 March 2014

It is becoming commonplace for colleges and universities to persecute and marginalize conservatives – but the most recent example shows how outrageous the behavior of leftist colleges is becoming.

Rutgers University in New Jersey had invited former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be their commencement speaker for the 2014 graduation ceremonies. Apparently, for the faculty at Rutgers, this is reason for protest.

Seriously.

The faculty at Rutgers has decided that Ms. Rice is not “qualified” to speak at the commencement of their students. They said she, “lacks “moral authority.” She fails to meet the standards of “exemplary citizenship” and she does not have what it takes to “inspire” graduating college seniors.”

Ridiculous.

This is what our liberal colleges have come to–where no one with conservative beliefs and values has a place among the halls of higher education.

Juan Williams from Fox News is noticing a trend out there –

“There is an added element at play here. There is a disgraceful double standard amongst liberals, particularly those in academia, in the hatred they direct at black conservatives.

We saw this last April when the conservative neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was forced to step down as a Commencement Speaker for Johns Hopkins University (where he ably served as the head of pediatric neurosurgery).

Liberals on the Hopkins campus mobilized against Carson because he criticized President Obama’s health care reform law and said that he opposed gay marriage.

I am not a conservative but I have spoken out for years against the staggering amount blind hatred directed at black conservatives by liberals.

Liberals are shockingly quick to demean and dismiss brilliant black people like Rice, Carson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), Professor Walter E. Williams and economist Thomas Sowell because they don’t fit into the role they have carved out for a black person in America.

Black Americans must be obedient liberals on all things or risk being called a race traitor or an Uncle Tom.”

It’s good to see Juan Williams defending conservatives – but its meaningless until more liberals begin speaking out against the injustice that is bred by leftist intolerance.

About the author: Onan Coca

Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.

Website: http://www.eaglerising.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Democratic Party’s Dirty Secret

INFOWARS

INFOWARS.COM

March 8, 2014
Updated with a new video below.

Jon Bowne investigates the mass amnesia associated with the indisputable connection between the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party as well as its long history of murder, torture and voting coercion (MUST SEE and SHARE):

And Alex explains how the Democrats’ history ties into their current race-based, divide and conquer platform:

Yet the mainstream media is always trying to bury these obvious connections.

For example, shortly after the death of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd in 2010, Daily Caller contributor Mike Riggs pointed out the mainstream media’s whitewash of Byrd’s former ties to the Ku Klux Klan:

Deceased U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd will be remembered by lots of things: His love for dogs and hyperbole, his ability to funnel federal dollars into make-work jobs in his native West Virginia, his loathing of balanced budgets and the fact that he skillfully conned several generations of Appalachian woodhicks into voting for him, over and over again, for almost six decades.

In passing, Sen. Byrd will also be remembered for having joined the Ku Klux Klan as a “young man.”

A quick check of this morning’s obituaries reveal that in the eyes of the traditional media, Byrd the Progressive Porker is much more important than Bob the Exalted Cyclops.

Byrd joined the Klan at the ripe young age of 24 — hardly a young’un by today’s standards, much less those of 1944, when Byrd refused to join the military because he might have to serve alongside “race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds,” according to a letter Byrd wrote to Sen. Theodore Bilbo at the height of World War II.

Today’s obituaries, however, made little mention of Byrd’s once-deeply held hatred for African Americans.

For your reading pleasure, a collection of obituary snow jobs:

From the 11th paragraph of the LA Times’ Byrd obituary: “Byrd was not always a champion of liberal causes. He had come of age as a member of the Ku Klux Klan and cast a “no” vote on the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination against African Americans and others. He later renounced his actions in both cases and called his membership in the KKK ‘the worst mistake of my life.’”

ABC News noted that “despite his successful political track record, the Senate’s senior Democrat was no stranger to controversy and was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan,” as if calling for the extermination of dark-skinned peoples (as well as Jews, Catholics, and gays) was no more stirring a gaffe than Gary Hart’s monkey business.

MSNBC.com reported that “Byrd’s success on the national stage came despite a complicated history on racial matters. As a young man, we was a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a brief period, and he joined Southern Democrats in an unsuccessful filibuster against the landmark 1964 Civil Rights.” (The Ku Klux Klan no doubt objects to being called complicated, and has held since Day 1 one that there is nothing wishy-washy about castrations, lynchings or burning folks alive.)

CNN also gave Byrd a pass on his association with the early 20th-century homegrown terrorist movement, writing in the 20th paragraph of Byrd’s obituary that “He blamed ‘that Southern atmosphere in which I grew up, with all of its prejudices and its feelings,’ for his opposition to equal rights, which included joining the [domestic terrorist outfit] Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s.”

This article was posted: Saturday, March 8, 2014 at 8:58 am

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s Political Cartoon

“Eating Away the First Amendment”

Posted on February 27, 2014

Common Core Curriculum, Written by Two Islamic Extremeist, Being Taught to Your Fourth Grade Child

THIS IS BEING TAUGHT TO FOURTH GRADE CHILDREN BY SCHOOLS USING Common Core Curriculum.

ONE MORE TIME.

THIS IS BEING TAUGHT TO FOURTH GRADE CHILDREN BY SCHOOLS USING Common Core Curriculum.

If you are not shocked into investigating your local schools to see if they are teaching this mess, than shame on you.

Jerry Broussard

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Sex and Lies in Current TN School Textbooks

http://victoriajackson.com/10406/list-lies-current-tn-school-textbooks#HZmDjECa8kF8Bsm8.99

Posted by Victoria Jackson on February 19, 2014 at 1:17 am

Go to TextbookAdvocates.com for this information.

The current textbooks being used in public schools today, that your children are reading, memorizing and being tested on, are inaccurate, revisionist, anti-American, racist, climate change propaganda based on fake science, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, pro-Islam, Marxist, globalist, pro-Socialism/Communism, pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, and sexually explicit. Below is a list of examples and… who wrote the Pearson Publishing textbooks, that TN schools are now using. (Related story, as of Dec. 2013, Pearson Foundation fined millions for violating laws. Story here.)

During August of 2013, scores of TN volunteers reviewed the 72 books on the State textbook list – 39% were declared acceptable for TN classrooms, 12% need major revisions to meet acceptable standards, many more need minor fixes.

Conclusion: “There is a mind-numbing degree of indoctrination (def: teach a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically) and (inappropriate sexual references/diagrams) found in the proposed textbooks.”

Here is a book called “It’s Perfectly Normal” on the 4th grade reading list. Below are photos I took from the book that a teacher of 30 years shared with me. Parents are not aware that this book is on the approved reading list for 4th grade classrooms.

Cartoon Pictures of Different Types of Naked Bodies

EXAMPLE OF TEXTBOOK LIES and PROPAGANDA:

1. According to McGraw Hill, 9-12 AP, “American Democracy Now”) America is a Democracy not a Constitutional Republic.

Truth: Mrs. Eliza Powell asked Ben Franklin in 1787, as he left the Constitutional Convention, “What have you given us?” He replied, ”A Republic if you can keep it.” From federal to local governments, every decision made by lawmakers must comply with our Constitution. Not so with a democracy. (A lynch mob is a democracy). In a democracy, whatever the majority decides the minority must endure. Our constitution is designed to protect the minority and the individual. There is not a full explanation of the Constitution in this textbook, but a lot of art work saying we are a Democracy.

2. According to Pearson Education 9-12,”What Should Governments Do?” The Purpose of Government is:

“Maintain a national defense,”
- Truth: yes, that’s in the Constitution,
“Provide public goods and services”
- Truth: uh, that’s limited in the Constitution,
“Preserve order…when people protest in large numbers government may resort to extreme measures to restore order.”
- Truth: Not constitutional until laws are broken
“Socialize the Young.”
- Truth: ??!!!! This is the beginning of State Controlled Children i.e. Castro, Hitler – it’s completely unconstitutional. Who do you want “socializing” your child?
“Collect Taxes.”
- Truth: They do that too well!

3. According to MacGruder’s American Government and Civics, Pearson Ed. 9-12, “What is Government?” The Government is not “by the people, of the people, and for the people,” but “the institution through which a society makes and enforces its public policies. Government is made up of those people who exercise it’s powers, all those who have authority and control over people.” (What?! The textbook continues,) “The public policies of a government are, inshore, all of those things a government decides to do….the list of public policy issues handled by government is nearly endless.”

(That’s an oligarchy, not America!)

4. According to MacGruder’s American Government and Civics, Pearson Ed. 9-12, “the Soviet Union controlled Eastern Europe for four decades. But by the late 1980s the Soviet Union had severe economic problems and a new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was making reforms…By 1989 Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania ended Communist control of their governments and held free elections…”

The truth that was omitted is that there were 56 to 62 million “unnatural deaths” for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin, Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistic neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956). Also omitted is that at the war’s end, the Soviet Union adopted a “plunder policy” of physically transporting and relocating east European industrial assets to the Soviet Union. Also omitted is the fact that no experiments in communism/socialism have ever succeeded. China is offered up as an example of success but Mao was responsible for over 70 million deaths. (Historians Jung Chang and Jon Halliday)

5. According to “American Government and Politics Today” Houghton, Miffli, Harcourt, 9-12, “…African Americans…feel a sense of injustice…and this feeling is often not apparent to, or appreciated by, the majority of white America.” What?! Uh, that sounds racist against white people…

According to the above textbook, “The president addressed racial profiling in ways no previous president could when one of the nation’s pre-eminent scholars was arrested…in his own home…

Truth: Police were doing their job protecting a home that appeared to be in the process of a burglary. President Obama said on National TV, “the police acted stupidly.”

6. According to “Psychology in Everday Life” Bedford, Freeman and Worth, “Under the guise of preventing voter fraud, a number of states have adopted laws likely to suppress the vote. Nine states now require government issued photo identification.”

Truth: That first sentence reveals the author’s bias. Fact: An illegal vote cancels your vote. That equals the disenfranchisement of the legal voter. A photo ID is required to board a plane, cash checks, rent anything, obtain a library card, join the YMCA, etc.

7. According to “American Government and Civics” Macgruders Page 758 says, “The number of families on welfare has plunged since the mid-1900s”

Truth: There was a 32% increase in welfare spending from 2009 to 2012 alone! Congressional Research Service

8. According to above textbook, page 10, “But what is justice?” The term is difficult to define for justice is a concept, an idea, an invention of the human mind. Like other concepts such as truth, liberty, fairness and justice means what people want it to mean.”

Truth: (that last ‘and’ is grammatically incorrect but in the quote) Moral virtues are natural law. The natural law our founding fathers spoke of. In a civilized world, … “It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, others really false…” C.S. Lewis from The Abolition of Man.

Moral virtues must be learned, therefore they must be taught. With no 10 Commandments, and the teaching of secular humanism, there are no absolutes, therefore, any behavior is permissible.

9. According to Ancient World History, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, “JESUS’ DEATH Jesus’ growing popularity concerned Roman leaders…The Roman governor Pontius Pilate accused Jesus of defying the Authority of Rome. Pilate arrested Jesus and sentenced him to be crucified.”

Truth: John 19:4 Pilate said, “I find no basis for a charge against him – You take him and crucify him, as for me I find no basis for a charge against him…From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free…”

10. According to “My World History and Geography, Early Civilization thru Renaissance” Houghton Mifflin Harcourt:

The number of units on Islam 1
The number of units on Christianity 0
The number of units on Judaism 0
The number of chapters on Islam 5
The number of chapters on Christianity 0
The number of references to Muslims 219
The number of references to Christians 42
The number of references to Jews 26
The number of references to Muhammad 180
The number of references to Jesus 102

You can see the rest of the examples at the Textbook Tattler at the website TextbookAdvocates.com.

Guess who wrote these biased Pearson textbooks? “Pearson hired Shabbir Mansuri, and Susan Douglass (a convert to Islam) to review and consult on the material being written for textbooks. One problem is that both of these individuals are associated with the Council for Islamic Education, a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” Story here.

Talk about bias! Check this out. From a textbook, authored by Karen K. Kirst-Ashman, that was allegedly assigned reading for a University of South Carolina three-credit course titled, “Introduction to Social Work Profession and Social Welfare.”

Category:

Education, Political

Tagged with:

Nearly 100 lawmakers descend on Mt. Vernon to discuss Convention of States

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/12/09/nearly-100-lawmakers-descend-on-mt-vernon-to-discuss-convention-of-states/

Monday, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:27 AM PST

EDITOR’S NOTE: Due to inclement weather in Dallas over the weekend, Glenn and his staff were still unable to make it into the office. Instead, Glenn broadcasted his radio program from home. As a result, no video clips will be available from Monday’s radio show. You can listen to the entire Glenn Beck Radio Program HERE. The story below is based on one of Monday’s radio segments.

***

Last week, Glenn shared the news that South Carolina and Virginia have formally called for an Article V Convention of State (COS). On Saturday, close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Virginia to discuss the possibility of adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states. A convention of states, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, allows state legislatures to vote on amendments to add.

“There was a really important meeting on Saturday. Nearly 100 state legislators from 32 different states met to discuss the possibility of the convention of the states,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “They said that they were looking for congressional term limits and limits on federal taxation and spending.”

“Need six more states, and we got ourselves a convention,” Pat added.

No constitutional amendment has ever been added through a COS, but some say the Constitution specifically allows for states to use the convention as a check against the federal government. Mark Levin lays out the argument in his book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public.

According to Article V, two-thirds of the state legislatures, or 34 states, must approve an application for a convention to occur. State legislatures would then send delegates to the convention, with each state getting one vote on proposed amendments. For an amendment to pass and become a part of the Constitution, it would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures.

“This was [written as] the last resort, the ejector seat,” Glenn said of the COS. “Your media has broken down. Your parties have taken over. Your Congress is corrupt. Your president is corrupt. Everything is corrupt, but before there’s a coup, you pull this chute.”

“And up until the last maybe a year, year and a half, I’ve always been dead-set against this, and I think you were too,” Pat said to Glenn. “Because the problem is you open up the Constitution. And you could potentially open it up to what everybody fears – globalists and all that kind of stuff. But you’re not because you’ve got enough states that are going to oppose that. You need 13 and you’re going to get 13 to oppose losing our sovereignty or repealing the Second Amendment.”

As Glenn explained, the COS offers an opportunity to refocus our federalist system away from the federal government and back to the states. While the progressives in Washington may want to keep the power as centralized as possible, Article V of the Constitution allows the states to push back against the federal government and exercise their own power.

“That’s the way it was intended in the first place. And I think it would be really good because what you have right now is all of these senators that care about the United States of America, not their own state. They’re supposed to care about their state,” Glenn said. “And it was Woodrow Wilson and the progressives that moved in and said, ‘No, we’ve got to stop all of this. We’ve got to get people to care about the United States of America and not their individual state.’ And that’s why our states are being raked over the coals.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

What We Always Suspected is Now Fact

WND EXCLUSIVE

Communists to Obama: We’ve got your back

Party chief says Americans more willing now to accept socialism

http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/communists-to-obama-weve-got-your-back/#UJgf7Vvsaqya2DyD.99

Published: 1 day ago

Jack Minor

Jack Minor is a journalist and researcher who served in the United States Marine Corps under President Reagan. Also a former pastor, he has written hundreds of articles and been interviewed about his work on many TV and radio outlets.

With Democrats facing a real possibility of losing the Senate this November, the Communist Party USA has announced the cavalry is planning to ride to their rescue by helping unite the left and stave off “right-wing extremism.”

The plans were announced during a web streaming event held by party Chairman Sam Webb Wednesday titled “Taking care of the future: from here to socialism.”. See video here;

The event was part of the party’s national convention process which will culminate later this year in Chicago, where the party was formed in 1919.

Webb told listeners that there is no direct path to socialism and that to arrive at their destination they would have to pass through different stages. He stated one of those steps was to work with other left-wing groups to press for issues important to the left.

“We can talk about shortening the work week, green jobs, restructuring the economy, we can talk about the de-militarization of the economy and putting those people back to work in jobs that are productive,” Webb said. “The starting point has to be this immediate engagement, but once we do that many things become possible such as more radical demands.”

Webb acknowledged that one of the problems the movement faces is the stigma of the name Communist among some Americans, but he believes under the policies of the Obama administration the country is now more willing to embrace those beliefs.

“The good news is the same hang-ups or stereotypes that people had 30 to 40 years ago are not so evident today,” he said. “Growing numbers of people are ready to have a conversation about socialism. There have been public opinion polls that indicate that substantial numbers have more confidence in socialism than capitalism.”

“We have to let people know what our vision is. The climate in the country is different. We can have a different conversation than we could have 30 to 40 years ago, even 20 years ago. Socialism is no longer a white-hot word, people are willing to talk about it.”

WND reported last month how retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, president of Stand Up America, announced a plan to unite the tea party groups in order to return the country to its constitutional roots.

Webb said Communists are planning a similar effort to unite left-wing groups to protect Democrats and President Obama from the possibility of losing the Senate to tea party candidates.

“Even if it’s only turning back right-wing extremism which plays such a large role in policies today… I don’t see how it’s going to happen without a much stronger left and an important part of that left is a bigger stronger Communist Party. That’s a necessary component.

“There’s a broad left in this country and a good section of it isn’t connected to other organizations. We have to be connected and have a dialogue with this broad left and find common ground where we can join in on joint struggles,” he said.

Webb said it was vital for left-wing individuals to be part of a “bigger and better Communist Party and a bigger and better left in general,” noting that the CPUSA had a major part in helping FDR with his New Deal policies.

“The New Deal came about for a lot of reasons, but I would argue that one of the main reasons was that in that same period we saw the growth of the Communist Party and the left in general,” Webb explained. “The Communist Party and the left in general contributed mightily to the process of first building of a transformative movement and then helping secure these changes, this New Deal.”

He said progressives need to have a bigger left in order to prevent the tea party movement from advancing its agenda.

Setting out the party’s goals, he said the CPUSA could not bring about socialism on its own but needed the help of other left-wing groups it was helping to unify.

“If it just took the left and Communists alone we would have done it long ago. It takes more than that. It takes a bigger Communist Party and left that is deeply embedded in the day to day struggle for people.”

The U.S. military, which has seen generals and other high-level officers relieved of duty at an unprecedented rate during the Obama administration, is in trouble largely because of the radical social experimentation being forced upon it, according to the Center for Military Readiness.

CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, said in an interview with WND that under Obama, budgets for the military have been slashed, SEAL Team Six members exposed as the ones who killed Osama bin Laden, open homosexuality introduced and service members pressed into service to hold an umbrella over the president during the rain.

Donnelly says Obama has done “great damage” to the military by taking away resources and imposing “heavy burdens of social experimentation.”

As WND reported, the U.S. military has been gutted with massive budget cuts due to the congressionally mandated sequestration to trim $1 trillion in government spending over 10 years, fully half of which would come from the defense budget.

Webb said despite these cuts the American government is still spending too much on the military and called for further military budget cuts and that the party has no qualms about working with those in other countries to fight against U.S. “imperialism.”

“We spend too much on military weapons and hardware, especially the United States. By building a transformative movement we can begin to change that,” Webb said. “We find many ways to express solidarity with people around the world who are fighting imperialism, either U.S. imperialism or any other imperialism.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Agenda 21: California Law Would Abolish Private Property

More steps being taken by Governor Brown to push us closer to a Marxist/Socialist/Communist State. MrB

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

http://lastresistance.com/4390/agenda-21-california-law-abolish-private-property/#qZZZJD8hKsaf0d3G.99

Posted By Philip Hodges on Jan 15, 2014

agenda 21

Part of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 is the abolition of private property. Confiscation of private property will be done under the guise of “sustainability.” They’ll argue that having a large plot of land is an inefficient use of the land, and that your land would be better used if it were developed into something else.

Perhaps they’d prefer that a mass transit rail run right through your property. So they’d take your property over through eminent domain, forcing your out of your own house and off your property to somewhere else where they have much more dense housing, and use the land that was previously yours as they saw fit.

These types of tyrannical gestures are being implemented around our country at the local level. In California, there is a law that’s awaiting Governor Brown’s signature that would institute an agency at the county level that could seize private property basically on a whim and using “sustainability” as the excuse.

Writing for the San Rafael Patch, Richard Hall sums up SB 1 here:

A city mayor or county supervisor forms a new joint powers authority called a “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority” (SCIA), they appoint elected officials to serve on the SCIAs board.
If you live within 1/2 mile of a bus that runs every 15 minutes during peak commutes, or the SMART train or Caltrain in a single family home neighborhood your neighborhood can be targeted by the SCIA as inefficient land use and “blighted” as it is not high density multi-family housing. Almost everyone reading this in Marin (apart from some Steve Kinsey constituents in Western Marin) is therefore affected – I have seen the map with these 1/2 mile radiuses and it covers almost all Marinites.
The SCIA can then wield the power of eminent domain to purchase unused, for sale or even occupied land in order to build high-density multi-family housing – that it deems to be efficient land use.
The SCIA can then impose local taxes on us to pay not just for the eminent domain purchases but to help the land developer build by subsidizing the building of high density housing.
In order to meet criteria in SB1 allowing imposition of local taxes the SCIA must impose “a sustainable parking standards ordinance that restricts parking in transit priority project areas to encourage transit use to the greatest extent feasible.” Yes you read that right, “to the greatest extent feasible.” This could mean anything from reducing available parking, to introducing parking permits and parking meters.

This is, of course, nothing less than communism. They just don’t call it communism. They call it “social justice.”

The following video is of a Town Hall Meeting regarding this issue. Listen to the fear in the voices of property owners.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Obama Plans to Sidestep Congress on Jobs Agenda with Executive Actions

More evidence that President Obama believes himself to be a King who can just;

order people to do whatever he wants,
enforce the laws he likes,
or change the laws he does not like,
issue an executive order to bypass the Congress and the Constitution he swore to uphold,
ignore the restrictions the Constitution puts on the Presidency.

President Obama has surrounded himself with other Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist who think like him, and therefore, encourage his law-breaking conduct. The following article exposes more of these “self-attributed” efforts.

Jerry Broussard (MrB)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

WWW.NEWSMAX.COM

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Economy/2014/01/14/id/546948

Ready to put an economic spotlight on his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama is picking up the pace of his jobs message and making a case that, even against a divided Congress, he can still be relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery.

With two weeks left before his message to a joint session of Congress, Obama is showcasing how he can advance his economic agenda administratively and through his ability to coax action from important interest groups.

On Tuesday, Obama is meeting with his Cabinet to discuss measures that can help the middle class. On Wednesday he will go to North Carolina to draw attention to industry steps to increase high-tech manufacturing. On Thursday he has invited college presidents to discuss ways to improve workers’ skills. Later this month, he is convening CEOs at the White House to lay out plans for hiring the long-term unemployed.

“The president will use every tool he can to create new jobs and opportunities for the middle class,” White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer writes in an email to be sent Tuesday morning to the White House list of supporters. “He will be looking for areas of bipartisan cooperation, but he won’t be waiting on Congress to act.”

The approach has strong echoes of Obama’s 2012 “We can’t wait” campaign that sought to depict Obama as an impatient executive in the face of inaction from Congress, particularly the Republican-controlled House.

Obama’s reliance on his executive powers and his bully pulpit — at the White House it’s called his “pen-and-phone” strategy — illustrates the means at his disposal but also highlights the limits of his ability to work with Congress.

Only through legislation can Obama obtain some of the most ambitious items on his economic agenda — from a higher minimum wage to universal preschool to an overhaul of immigration laws, three items in his 2013 State of the Union that will make a return appearance in this year’s address.

That means that as long as Republicans in Congress are unreceptive to his legislative priorities, he will have to settle for more incremental and narrower solutions that don’t necessarily have the staying power and the force of law.

Last week, Obama announced that five communities had been designated as “promise zones,” fulfilling a goal he set out in his 2013 State of the Union speech. Last year, Obama also announced that he intended to launch three manufacturing hubs where businesses would work to create centers of high-tech jobs by working in partnership with the Energy and Defense departments. But in an example of his limitations, he also called on Congress to create 15 more similar hubs, a request that went unanswered.

Obama’s determination to use the power of executive orders and administrative actions as well as his decision to convene key figures from private enterprise, education and other interest groups to help advance his agenda also underscore some of the built-in powers of the presidency. Clinton-era White House chief of staff John Podesta, who is joining the White House as a senior adviser, has long pressed Obama to use his executive authority to get around congressional opposition.

Podesta co-authored a report in 2010 for the liberal Center for American Progress that was essentially a treatise on presidential authority. It argued that both presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had enacted aspects of their agendas even in the face of a divided Congress.

“The upshot: Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still,” Podesta wrote. “This administration has a similar opportunity to use available executive authorities while also working with Congress where possible.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Economy/2014/01/14/id/546948#ixzz2qPrKJPI7 Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Heed these words, part 1: NYC Comptroller follows de Blasio’s Marxist lead

http://allenbwest.com/2014/01/heed-words-part-1-nyc-comptroller-follows-de-blasios-marxist-lead/#fDHs8LcVAqA6TPGf.99

Written by Allen West on January 3, 2014

I love the music from the 80s. The other day I heard one of my favorite songs from that era by Missing Persons — “Words” — and the refrain truly struck a chord: “What are words for, when no one listens anymore?” Unfortunately, with our sound bite mentality, we are no longer paying attention to words — to our detriment.

The progressive agenda being laid out by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is truly frightening as we reported yesterday. He clearly articulated his plans to attack free market success in the nation’s largest city. Was anyone paying attention?

Scott Stringer, the new Comptroller of New York City, is unfortunately on the same page. Here’s some of what he had to say in his inaugural address:

There will be those who say that we as a city cannot afford to tackle poverty and inequality. As Comptroller, I say we can’t afford not to. I believe that pursing a progressive agenda and being fiscally responsible is not mutually exclusive. We can and we must do both… And just as America has historically looked to New York for inspiration, so the country once again turns its eyes toward us today, to this city, to our people, for a blueprint of a thriving hopeful future, to a city that puts people above politics, and shared prosperity above individual success.

I hate to break it to the NYC Comptroller, but it is impossible to pursue a progressive agenda and be fiscally responsible. A progressive agenda is rooted in a Marxist/socialist governing philosophy, which means a government-centric economy aimed at wealth redistribution to combat “inequality.” The result is and always has been that government grows in size and scope to provide more services under the guise of fairness.

It eventually leads to higher government spending and that means taking more resources from the hard working and/or more borrowing, an increase in debt, and of course larger deficits.

Stringer unabashedly articulates his bottom line for a progressive agenda: shared prosperity above individual success. Those words should send a chill down the backs of every New Yorker and every American. The Comptroller of the nation’s largest city does not believe in the fundamental premise upon which America was created — individual rights and determination.

This is the essence of the “collective vision” of a progressive agenda. Yes, it’s a communist manifesto, the reduction of the individual and the elevation of the group, the collective. What are words for when no one listens anymore?

Perhaps some are listening because apparently Florida just surpassed New York in terms of population. Of course the weather is better down here, but I’m quite certain taxes have a little to do with the decision to move as well.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

A Respected Perspective

Army Captain: Obama’s DHS Intends to Kill “You and Me!”

By Clash Daily / 26 March 2013 / http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/army-captain-obamas-dhs-intends-to-kill-you-and-me/

Screen Shot 2013-03-26 at 9.22.40 AM On Thursday, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired Army officer with nearly 30 years of service under his belt, as well as combat experience in both Vietnam and Afghanistan issued a dire warning to all Americans.

The following warning was posted on Hestilow’s Facebook page:

I fully intend to address this in far greater detail within days, but ask yourself, with all the law enforcement available in the United States, who the DHS is preparing to declare war on inside the U.S.?

With the massive purchases of almost 3,000 new armored vehicles (MRAPs) and 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammunition, with associated weapons, who in the U.S. do they intend to kill? Short answer: You and me! Anyone they think is standing in their way to impose a new Marxist government! Anyone who stands for the U.S. Constitution!

We must demand that our representatives (Senators and U.S. Representatives) stand firm and immediately force, by law if necessary, the DHS turn over their arsenal of war making equipment to the Department of Defense. Nothing justifies this massive arms build up of an agency whose jurisdiction is internal within the United States of America! They are preparing to go to war against American citizens!

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Going Back to the Basics of the Second Amendment

The rhetoric of the Right and Left has clouded the basics of the Second Amendment. The emotional hysteria by the Left has further enhanced their determination to disarm citizens so they can begin more of their socialist controls. Those on the Right are making assertions that cannot be supported with fact and all sides have misrepresented various details of crime and guns.

Let us see if we can clear the fog and look at this issue without the emotions, accusations and mischaracterizations of the political and media establishments. I will use the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the actual historical facts of the formation of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html)

The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists’ most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, “What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such “fundamental maxims of free Government” would be “a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community” against potential oppression and would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”

Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the “Bill of Rights.”

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was “a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.” When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

A lot of reading, however, your advantage is having no one telling you what it says. You are an intelligent person and understand it for yourself.

The creation of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or the formation of a militia. It does not address the right of an individual to defend themselves, although it covers that in part. The real foundation is protecting the citizens of the United States of America against a tyrannical government controlling every aspect of their lives. It removes the ability to restrict the munitions needed for such a resistance (how much a clip can hold – in order to protect yourself you need the same capacity of your ammo clip to hold the same of those attacking you; federal, criminal, and now terrorist). It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This was the concern of those (Federalist) that wanted assurance that they would be able to protect themselves against a government taking over their lives.

Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt (FDR) introduced Socialism into our country. The political Left has seized upon that and throughout the last 100 years has made every effort to more us into a complete European style Socialist country. The primary step to seize control is to disarm the citizenry. Once disarmed, they cannot resist the domination of the government because they have no ability to resist. Disarming tax paying citizens puts them at the mercy of those that have no regard for life and property, or the pride of working for a living. 100% of the time when you disarm citizens’ crime increases dramatically.

All you have to do is look at our present Federal Government conduct. We have a President who studied Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist governments in all his schooling, and argued for the same. He has surrounded himself with people who have confessed being Socialist in their ideology. His misuse of Presidential Executive Orders further proves his conviction of being a KING, not a LIMITED PRESIDENT as outlined in our Constitution.

He and the Entire political Left are determined to disarm America although they know they will never be able to disarm the criminal element in our society. I have shared with you the experiences of Australia and England. They want their firearms back. They are warning America against what they are experiencing. When you hear the rhetoric of the Left in coming days remember the warnings of the citizens of Australia and England.

Whenever you meet force with force, you have a better percentage of survival. Education and training is critical and must be enforced with regard to owning any form of firearms. We must also have laws that deal with helping, and securing, those that are mentally challenged. The entertainment industry must take responsibility for what they glorify in film and video entertainment. We need to revive respect for life and liberty and the moral fiber that built this great nation.

Anger and shrill debate is never the answer. Restoring the peace and the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be our only resolve. Anyone want to join me?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Marxist’

High-level Democrats positioned to profit from ‘green’ projects

Published: 1 day ago

However, the BLM’s library of renewable energy projects revealed it was only one of more than 50 solar, wind and geothermal projects planned for Nevada, California, Arizona and other Western states. Reid was focused on at least one, and maybe more, of the projects, much closer to the Bundy ranch.

The lucrative business opportunities explain both why Cliven Bundy has been facing such intense intimidation and why all the other ranchers have been chased out. Bundy represents a financial threat not merely to Reid, but a whole gamut of Democrats tied to Obama, Clinton and Gore.

Whether that turns out to be the case or not, the Bundy story needs far greater and deeper media scrutiny.

Share this:

By Todd Starnes

Published April 15, 2014

FoxNews.com

Share this:

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: April 10

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Share this:

This shouldn’t come as a great surprise since one can’t disagree with the policies or actions of Barack Obama without being labeled as a racist or bigot. But, this indoctrination of our youth should have Americans everywhere worried.

“Would it have been possible for him to be elected (twice) without the support of vast numbers of white Americans?” one member stated.

Be aware of what is being taught in your neighborhood schools. This type of dangerous indoctrination can have serious effects on the mindset of our youth and the direction of this country.

Share this:

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/the-exclusion-of-equal-rights/#u3ILphchZpHkfizI.99 Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow ponders ‘gay’ and lesbian inability to ‘reproduce their species’

In the words of one American president (whom many remember, one way or another), “Let me make this perfectly clear …” the homosexual community is not striving for equal rights, they are driving for special rights applicable only to them, to the exclusion of equal rights for others.

Share this:

Mozilla Chief Learns, if You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, You Don’t Deserve a Job

Todd Starnes | Apr 04, 2014

Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property?

Why not take away their right to vote?

Why not take away their children?

Why not just throw them in jail?

Why not force them to work in chain gangs?

Why not call for public floggings?

Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.

No, not really, Ms. Baker. Our Founding Fathers sort of worked that out in the Bill of Rights.

Just ask our nation’s top military officials. They were called into President Obama’s office and told that if they could not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should resign their commissions.

“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked at all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” said Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp in remarks reported by Buzzfeed.

I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.

I know this may sound old-fashioned, but gainful employment should not be determined by where you put your reproductive organs.

Tolerance is a b*tch, ain’t it?

Share this:

Reported by Matt Barber

on 29 March, 2014 at 19:00

“Surrender on the ‘social issues’!” demands the GOP’s cultural Marxist-enabling kamikazes.

How far has fallen the party of the jackass:

Look around. We are no longer the United States of America. We have become The Communist States of America.

Which means, for those who love liberty, revolution is once again at hand.

Share this:

on 28 March, 2014 at 06:40

May God help us.

Share this:

By Allan Erickson / 30 March 2014

Share this:

Michael Schaus | Mar 28, 2014

Share this:

THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT! THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Congressional benefits?

Free healthcare?

Outrageous retirement packages?

67 paid holidays?

Three weeks paid vacation?

Unlimited paid sick days?

Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?

It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

Share this:

By Onan Coca / 8 March 2014

Seriously.

Ridiculous.

About the author: Onan Coca

Share this:

INFOWARS.COM

March 8, 2014 Updated with a new video below.

In passing, Sen. Byrd will also be remembered for having joined the Ku Klux Klan as a “young man.”

A quick check of this morning’s obituaries reveal that in the eyes of the traditional media, Byrd the Progressive Porker is much more important than Bob the Exalted Cyclops.

Today’s obituaries, however, made little mention of Byrd’s once-deeply held hatred for African Americans.

For your reading pleasure, a collection of obituary snow jobs:

Share this:

“Eating Away the First Amendment”

Posted on February 27, 2014

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/02/eating-away-first-amendment/#OA9ZmkXIYyikqgym.99

Share this:

THIS IS BEING TAUGHT TO FOURTH GRADE CHILDREN BY SCHOOLS USING Common Core Curriculum.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/the-exclusion-of-equal-rights/#u3ILphchZpHkfizI.99

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow ponders ‘gay’ and lesbian inability to ‘reproduce their species’

March 8, 2014
Updated with a new video below.