Been saying this from the start yet the only ones we see keeping this alive is American Thinker. Great site. These communist/socialist assholes need to be hung up in the town square and beaten to death. But in towns like Chicago and Washington D.C. socialists and communists are welcomed instead of killed. Where have you gone Joe McCarthy? Real Americans turn their lonely eyes to you. Yes I am one of those that believe ol' Joe did good for America. He set a precedent for the rest of us to follow and even today all these years after the fall of the Soviet Union I still view commies as America's worst enemy. Joe died long before I was born. Islamofascists attack us, commies try to change America.
November 01, 2010
Pay No Attention to the Communists behind the Curtain
By Robert Knight
The evidence is overwhelming. The media interest is zero. The UFO strategy is in force.
Let me explain.
I'm talking about the unsolved Weather Underground murder of San Francisco Police Officer Brian V. McDonnell. A bomb placed on Feb. 16, 1970 outside the Golden Gate Park police station ripped through Sgt. McDonnell, who died two days later. His killers never paid a price.
Apart from simple justice, here's why this open case still matters. According to testimony by undercover FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, William Ayers was almost certainly involved. Ayers helped launch Obama's political career in 1995 at his home in Chicago and served on two boards with him. Ayers told Grathwohl that Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, planted the bomb. In 1971, the FBI found Ayers' fingerprints and those of other Weather Underground terrorists in an apartment that had been a bomb-making factory.
Because of prosecutorial errors, Ayers went free, boasting, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird." Dohrn remained underground until 1980, spent jail time for lesser charges, and then went on, like Ayers, to be a professor at a major college. Ayers was at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Dohrn is at Northwestern University.
On Oct. 21, Larry Grathwohl told his story at a seminar at the National Press Club sponsored by America's Survival, Inc. Moderator Cliff Kincaid, who recently obtained a 601-page FBI file of Barack Obama's communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, unveiled a raft of speakers and evidence pointing to manipulation of American liberals by actual communist revolutionaries.
Among the speakers was New Zealand blogger and investigative reporter Trevor Loudon, who uncovered former "green jobs czar" Van Jones' communist background, which led to Jones' resignation in 2009. Jones is now back at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.
I spoke as well, reporting on the FBI file on Harry Hay, a Communist Party member off and on from 1934 to 1948 and a founder of the Mattachine Society, an early homosexual activist group. Hay also co-founded the Radical Faeries and championed the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Hay was cited as an "inspiration" by longtime homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, whom Obama appointed as the nation's "safe schools czar" at the U.S. Department of Education.
Another speaker was Paul Kengor, best-selling author of a new book, Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. Dr. Kengor has the goods on numerous leftists, including the Hollywood Ten, who became famous during the McCarthy era. Four of them, according to FBI files, actually had Communist Party cards with membership numbers. It might be good to recall this the next time you see the media describe them as the "famed Hollywood Ten."
The evidence is so obvious that communists infiltrated many liberal causes and unions and that the liberal media have looked away while crying "McCarthyism." I call this the UFO strategy. Even if you actually saw a UFO, you'd be considered, uh, crazy. What's different here is that the communist influence on America's Left is no delusion. It is thoroughly documented.
On Oct. 23, Kincaid, with a video camera, confronted both Ayers and Dohrn at an environmentalist event in Washington, D.C.
Kincaid: "Why did your husband tell [undercover FBI agent] Larry Grathwohl that you planted the bomb?"
Dohrn: "That is so stupid." She went on to deny involvement.
Kincaid then asked Ayers about the dedication to radicals in the 1974 manifesto Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism that included Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. Signed by Ayers, Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn, the manifesto says, "We are communist men and women, underground in the United States for more than four years ... The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war ... Without armed struggle there can be no victory."
Kincaid: "Mr. Ayers, if you're anti-war, why did you dedicate your book to the assassin of the leading anti-war candidate in the country?"
Ayers: "You're delusional." He walked away while others blocked the camera.
In an onstage presentation, Dohrn addressed the charges in a pamphlet that Kincaid had circulated. She said, "We live in a time of greater polarization, of hate speech and hate talk. ... We were never terrorists. It's all crap." That flatly contradicts a New York Times interview published on Sept. 11, 2001, in which an unrepentant Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough."
Dohrn also misrepresented what she and Ayers were doing in the 1970s -- aiding and abetting communism: "We were trying to stop the murderous assault that for 10 years killed three million people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and U.S. service people. It was the right thing to do."
In his Oct. 21 presentation, former FBI agent Grathwohl noted that no anti-war literature was found in the Weather Underground bomb factory, just communist booklets urging violent revolution.
In any event, the anti-war movement was instrumental in the U.S. pullout in 1975, leaving Cambodia at the mercy of Khmer Rouge dictator Pol Pot, who killed more than two million of his countrymen. For Dohrn to claim that she and Ayers were merely peaceniks when they were in fact agitating for a communist victory is a lie worthy of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's novel 1984.
This all should be very hot stuff, given Ayers' and Dohrn's long association with Barack Obama and their continuing activism, which includes, according to Kincaid, recent visits to Hugo Chávez's Venezuela and with radicals in Gaza. But the press is silent. They have spent far more time, personnel, and treasure searching Sarah Palin's garbage cans.
On May 22, 2008, Kincaid held a seminar unveiling evidence about Frank Marshall Davis and his eight years influencing a young Barack Obama in Hawaii. Among the speakers was Herb Romerstein, the dean of researchers on communism, whose work has spanned six decades. The Big Media skipped it, except for the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who ignored the facts and viciously ridiculed the gathering, calling Romerstein "a living relic." Milbank likened the event to a "UFO convention."
The UFO strategy. It's very handy against a mountain of inconvenient facts. But facts are stubborn things.
Robert Knight is a Senior Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, and the author of the recently updated Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward Socialism (2010, www.radicalrulers.com).
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Government Power Undermines Empathy
I got this article off American Thinker, yes again, but it is an eloquent way to say that government and liberals fuck us all without permission and not even any KY. This is why we want dems dead. Not even they laziest free thinking American (read non-liberal) will stand for being told what to do, think, or buy from the government.
Government Power Undermines Empathy
By Joel F. Wade
Empathy: The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary
The fundamental quality of human relationship is empathy. Empathy enables you to understand another person's situation, make sense of his behavior, and distance yourself from you own initial self-absorbed reaction to what other people do. It is a supreme expression of consciousness, providing the ability to wait a moment and consider what's happening before acting.
Freedom and capitalism encourage empathy; government power and administrative nitpicking undermine it.
Before trade, the primary interaction among people of different groups was war. The enemy was not considered human; there was no reason for him to be. There was no benefit to expanding the range of empathy beyond one's group. Outside people did not exist within the moral circle of another tribe, and they did not enjoy the benefits of human empathy.
This all began to change with the beginnings of trade about 80,000 years ago. That's when we see marine shells painted and strung as necklaces far from the sea in Africa (see Matt Ridley's book, The Rational Optimist). How did they get there? From people outside the tribe who had something to trade. These shells were used as a medium of exchange, and it was the beginning of a visible expression of our common humanity.
Free exchange is the form of social interaction that most encourages human empathy. When you want something, and somebody else has that something that you want, you have several choices: You can steal it, you can beg him to give it to you, you can ask to borrow it, or you can exchange with your interlocutor something that has an equal or greater value to him.
Begging, borrowing, or stealing all put you in a position which naturally diminishes your empathy. The other person becomes "the thing that possesses something I want." If I use force to steal or appeal to the generosity of another to lend or give me what I want, it puts both of us in an adversarial position toward one another, or at the very least into a sort of dominant/submissive relationship.
The free trade of capitalism, on the other hand, encourages empathy. If I trade with somebody, we are equals. We have to consider each other's interests, likes, desires, and dislikes in order to make a good trade.
Free trade encourages very different people to seek common ground, to understand different ways of living so that we can understand what each one wants and effectively sell things to each other.
In a very real, social sense, it is trade that has brought out the very best of humanity.
Trade does not make everybody angels, and it does not negate human nature. But it does encourage us to understand and accept human nature, and it gets us to look for what's true about people as a consistent way of life, because by doing so we become more effective and successful. But this is not something that can be forced; free trade requires the ability for individuals to choose to do what motivates them. Free trade requires freedom.
The contemporary antithesis is the attempt by some people to use the force of government to make people do things -- like forcing new "green" technology to be (somehow) invented and used or forcing those who create wealth to spread their wealth around to those who do not.
These kinds of ends are pursued by people who consider themselves deeply compassionate and who consider those who oppose such government force cold and uncaring. But they confuse controlling and giving things to people with compassion.
I had a conversation recently with a retired schoolteacher who was singing the praises of President Obama's policies. She said that she wants more entitlements. I pointed out how many of the people who create wealth are leaving California for the very reason that the government is taking too much of their wealth to pay for her entitlements. She responded, "That's why it's good that Obama is enforcing these policies throughout the country so that the wealthy can't just leave." I pointed out how many of the people who create wealth are leaving the country, too. She responded, "That's why I like that Obama is making it more difficult for the wealthy to leave the country and avoid paying U.S. taxes."
Nowhere in this conversation did I hear from her any appreciation of "these people who create wealth" as people. Rather, these people were seen by her as "the wealthy" -- not people, but things that should give her more of what she wants.
This is the problem with greed and envy (which are clearly two of this woman's driving emotions): they cause us to think of other people not as people, but as things. They serve to diminish our capacity for empathy, and they reinforce our sense of other people as objects. It is this lack of empathy that makes it possible for people to do horrible things to one another.
When people on the left talk about compassion, it is really an abstraction. Their compassion -- at least as they express it politically -- is based upon an idea they have of how we all should be; they want us to be like their image of us. Like bad stage parents who try to force their kids to fulfill their own ambitions, folks who seek to use government force to make us better people are not thinking about real people at all.
But their actions, their wishes, their ideals affect real, live human beings, with very personal experiences, relationships, ideas, and beliefs -- and a very real human nature that will not be molded like so much clay in an administrator's hands. Those on the left look upon humanity as small children look upon a blob of Play-Doh, and they work like crazy to squish us and form us and flatten us into the shapes that they long for humanity to become.
This is not empathy; it is magical thinking.
Empathy is encouraged by trade and individual liberty. Individualism is not some cold-hearted selfishness; it is the condition under which real people can care for, respect, and understand other real people.
The way to encourage greater human empathy is to affirm and champion the freedom of the individual, including the freedom of the individual to trade what and how he or she wishes.
This is what our founders did, and they created the foundation for the most benevolent, powerful, and compassionate country that this world has ever seen. It is our task to ensure that our gift of liberty does not perish from this earth in the name of the childish fantasy that people can be forced to conform to an ideal.
Joel F. Wade, Ph.D. is the author of Mastering Happiness: Ten Principles for Living a More Fulfilling Life. He can be reached at jwade@drjoelwade.com.
Government Power Undermines Empathy
By Joel F. Wade
Empathy: The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also: the capacity for this.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary
The fundamental quality of human relationship is empathy. Empathy enables you to understand another person's situation, make sense of his behavior, and distance yourself from you own initial self-absorbed reaction to what other people do. It is a supreme expression of consciousness, providing the ability to wait a moment and consider what's happening before acting.
Freedom and capitalism encourage empathy; government power and administrative nitpicking undermine it.
Before trade, the primary interaction among people of different groups was war. The enemy was not considered human; there was no reason for him to be. There was no benefit to expanding the range of empathy beyond one's group. Outside people did not exist within the moral circle of another tribe, and they did not enjoy the benefits of human empathy.
This all began to change with the beginnings of trade about 80,000 years ago. That's when we see marine shells painted and strung as necklaces far from the sea in Africa (see Matt Ridley's book, The Rational Optimist). How did they get there? From people outside the tribe who had something to trade. These shells were used as a medium of exchange, and it was the beginning of a visible expression of our common humanity.
Free exchange is the form of social interaction that most encourages human empathy. When you want something, and somebody else has that something that you want, you have several choices: You can steal it, you can beg him to give it to you, you can ask to borrow it, or you can exchange with your interlocutor something that has an equal or greater value to him.
Begging, borrowing, or stealing all put you in a position which naturally diminishes your empathy. The other person becomes "the thing that possesses something I want." If I use force to steal or appeal to the generosity of another to lend or give me what I want, it puts both of us in an adversarial position toward one another, or at the very least into a sort of dominant/submissive relationship.
The free trade of capitalism, on the other hand, encourages empathy. If I trade with somebody, we are equals. We have to consider each other's interests, likes, desires, and dislikes in order to make a good trade.
Free trade encourages very different people to seek common ground, to understand different ways of living so that we can understand what each one wants and effectively sell things to each other.
In a very real, social sense, it is trade that has brought out the very best of humanity.
Trade does not make everybody angels, and it does not negate human nature. But it does encourage us to understand and accept human nature, and it gets us to look for what's true about people as a consistent way of life, because by doing so we become more effective and successful. But this is not something that can be forced; free trade requires the ability for individuals to choose to do what motivates them. Free trade requires freedom.
The contemporary antithesis is the attempt by some people to use the force of government to make people do things -- like forcing new "green" technology to be (somehow) invented and used or forcing those who create wealth to spread their wealth around to those who do not.
These kinds of ends are pursued by people who consider themselves deeply compassionate and who consider those who oppose such government force cold and uncaring. But they confuse controlling and giving things to people with compassion.
I had a conversation recently with a retired schoolteacher who was singing the praises of President Obama's policies. She said that she wants more entitlements. I pointed out how many of the people who create wealth are leaving California for the very reason that the government is taking too much of their wealth to pay for her entitlements. She responded, "That's why it's good that Obama is enforcing these policies throughout the country so that the wealthy can't just leave." I pointed out how many of the people who create wealth are leaving the country, too. She responded, "That's why I like that Obama is making it more difficult for the wealthy to leave the country and avoid paying U.S. taxes."
Nowhere in this conversation did I hear from her any appreciation of "these people who create wealth" as people. Rather, these people were seen by her as "the wealthy" -- not people, but things that should give her more of what she wants.
This is the problem with greed and envy (which are clearly two of this woman's driving emotions): they cause us to think of other people not as people, but as things. They serve to diminish our capacity for empathy, and they reinforce our sense of other people as objects. It is this lack of empathy that makes it possible for people to do horrible things to one another.
When people on the left talk about compassion, it is really an abstraction. Their compassion -- at least as they express it politically -- is based upon an idea they have of how we all should be; they want us to be like their image of us. Like bad stage parents who try to force their kids to fulfill their own ambitions, folks who seek to use government force to make us better people are not thinking about real people at all.
But their actions, their wishes, their ideals affect real, live human beings, with very personal experiences, relationships, ideas, and beliefs -- and a very real human nature that will not be molded like so much clay in an administrator's hands. Those on the left look upon humanity as small children look upon a blob of Play-Doh, and they work like crazy to squish us and form us and flatten us into the shapes that they long for humanity to become.
This is not empathy; it is magical thinking.
Empathy is encouraged by trade and individual liberty. Individualism is not some cold-hearted selfishness; it is the condition under which real people can care for, respect, and understand other real people.
The way to encourage greater human empathy is to affirm and champion the freedom of the individual, including the freedom of the individual to trade what and how he or she wishes.
This is what our founders did, and they created the foundation for the most benevolent, powerful, and compassionate country that this world has ever seen. It is our task to ensure that our gift of liberty does not perish from this earth in the name of the childish fantasy that people can be forced to conform to an ideal.
Joel F. Wade, Ph.D. is the author of Mastering Happiness: Ten Principles for Living a More Fulfilling Life. He can be reached at jwade@drjoelwade.com.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
I got this from American Thinker, still the best website for conservative writings. Been saying this from the start of your president's rise finally someone did some real research and put it in a book. Long overdue but the truth about president fuckface is finally coming to light.
October 30, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, is a detailed look into the forces that shaped Barack Obama. Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has written a highly detailed and definitive account of the president's conversion as a radical activist; he provides minute and abundant evidence confirming the long-disputed label of "socialist" that has dogged the president since his undergraduate days. Kurtz describes Obama's ideology as "stealth socialism" and called his views "Barack Obama's secret." In the preface of the book, Kurtz writes, "The president has systematically disguised the truth about his socialist convictions, sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance."
Kurtz begins his account in 1983, presenting evidence that Barack Obama, then a senior undergraduate at Columbia University, attended several annual sessions of the "Socialist Scholars Conference." Kurtz describes the shift of strategy that took place at that meeting to turn the socialist movement from its goal of "nationalization" to community organizing as the best means of promoting the movement during the Reagan administration. Kurtz details the evidence that Socialist Scholars conferences influenced Obama and refutes the president's claim that his embrace of community organizing was an "impulse." Instead, in Kurtz's fully documented account, the Socialist Scholars conferences provided the future president with a vision for transforming America, as well as a way for black Americans to be the driving force behind that transformation through the efforts of the Midwest Academy, a training institute that Kurtz credits with Obama's political ascendancy.
Many of the "class warfare" themes that dominate President Obama's current rhetoric are rooted in that period of his life -- such as the "haves" v. the "have-nots" and big business v. the poor. Kurtz shows that the influence of Chicago politics on the future president's life began at that time with his involvement with Chicago mayor Harold Washington. President Obama extols Washington -- a politician Kurtz says openly identified with Chicago's socialists and the person Kurtz credits with overthrowing the "centrist Democratic machine" in Chicago -- as his "political idol" and role model, along with Saul Alinsky, for his political life.
It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of Harold Washington and other Chicago radicals in the 1980s in shaping the politics of Barack Obama. Kurtz details the ways that Washington spearheaded the radicalization of the Democratic Party and shifted the party's focus to building coalitions of poor and minority voters. He also shows how groups like ACORN functioned to swell the party ranks and fuel the anti-business and class warfare agendas. Perhaps more importantly, Kurtz traces the influence of friends and associates from that era of Obama's life who are now among his most controversial political advisors and appointees. Kurtz describes them: "Barack Obama's colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth-socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political realignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day."
Kurtz's research reveals the intricate, though sometimes "stealth," connections between Obama and the "populist" radical coalitions of the 1980s. Those connections included links to Jeremiah Wright's radical activities, as well as the activities of coalitions like the Midwest Academy, the Illinois Project Vote, and the "Public Allies" projects.
More troubling than any of the obvious, open, and/or stealth associations are the instances where Kurtz details the ways that President Obama "distorted" and "obfuscated" the record of his involvement with ACORN and his relationships with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his mentor, Bill Ayers. Kurtz notes that the deceptions include accounts in the president's memoir, Dreams of My Father. These deceptions, according to Kurtz, are dangerous because "we will be irreversibly down the path toward social transformation before we recognize as a nation what's at stake. The strategy of achieving socialism through a series of 'non-reformist reforms,' so popular among American's community organizing elite, is premised on precisely that deception."
The patterns of behavior, distortion, and rhetorical devices that characterize President Obama's rise to political prominence are disturbing on numerous fronts. The "obfuscation" about his past alignments and associations is particularly troubling, as is the evidence that he continues to govern as president under the same ideology that guided his past behavior and associations. If the driving forces behind his past political ideology and associations remain constant -- as Kurtz's account seems to substantiate beyond refutation -- the questions about his strategy for implementing his vision for change are legitimate and crucial for the future of our nation.
With the 2010 election just around the corner, Obama is engaging in a nationwide campaign similar to the one he waged for the presidency in 2008; his get-out-the-vote strategy is targeting the youth, minority, poor, and women's vote. As centrist independents, all varieties of conservatives plus Tea Party voters look at his past through the lens of Kurtz's exhaustive and thorough research, all have far more information about the "transformation" that the president promised in 2008. Through Kurtz's book, the political picture is crystal clear, and the president's purpose is painfully obvious.
What is equally certain from the evidence Kurtz presents is that the prospect for the nation's future depends upon the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections. We cannot, however, wait until 2012 to place checks and balances on the radical policies and purposes of this most ideologically driven of presidents. As Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is author of Children at Risk (Transaction, 2010) and is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
October 30, 2010
President Obama and the Radical Socialist Agenda
By Janice Shaw Crouse
Stanley Kurtz's new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, is a detailed look into the forces that shaped Barack Obama. Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has written a highly detailed and definitive account of the president's conversion as a radical activist; he provides minute and abundant evidence confirming the long-disputed label of "socialist" that has dogged the president since his undergraduate days. Kurtz describes Obama's ideology as "stealth socialism" and called his views "Barack Obama's secret." In the preface of the book, Kurtz writes, "The president has systematically disguised the truth about his socialist convictions, sometimes by directly misrepresenting his past and sometimes by omitting or parceling out damaging information to disguise its real importance."
Kurtz begins his account in 1983, presenting evidence that Barack Obama, then a senior undergraduate at Columbia University, attended several annual sessions of the "Socialist Scholars Conference." Kurtz describes the shift of strategy that took place at that meeting to turn the socialist movement from its goal of "nationalization" to community organizing as the best means of promoting the movement during the Reagan administration. Kurtz details the evidence that Socialist Scholars conferences influenced Obama and refutes the president's claim that his embrace of community organizing was an "impulse." Instead, in Kurtz's fully documented account, the Socialist Scholars conferences provided the future president with a vision for transforming America, as well as a way for black Americans to be the driving force behind that transformation through the efforts of the Midwest Academy, a training institute that Kurtz credits with Obama's political ascendancy.
Many of the "class warfare" themes that dominate President Obama's current rhetoric are rooted in that period of his life -- such as the "haves" v. the "have-nots" and big business v. the poor. Kurtz shows that the influence of Chicago politics on the future president's life began at that time with his involvement with Chicago mayor Harold Washington. President Obama extols Washington -- a politician Kurtz says openly identified with Chicago's socialists and the person Kurtz credits with overthrowing the "centrist Democratic machine" in Chicago -- as his "political idol" and role model, along with Saul Alinsky, for his political life.
It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of Harold Washington and other Chicago radicals in the 1980s in shaping the politics of Barack Obama. Kurtz details the ways that Washington spearheaded the radicalization of the Democratic Party and shifted the party's focus to building coalitions of poor and minority voters. He also shows how groups like ACORN functioned to swell the party ranks and fuel the anti-business and class warfare agendas. Perhaps more importantly, Kurtz traces the influence of friends and associates from that era of Obama's life who are now among his most controversial political advisors and appointees. Kurtz describes them: "Barack Obama's colleagues and mentors were some of the smartest and most influential stealth-socialist community organizers in the country. Their strategies of political realignment and social transformation guide the Obama administration to this day."
Kurtz's research reveals the intricate, though sometimes "stealth," connections between Obama and the "populist" radical coalitions of the 1980s. Those connections included links to Jeremiah Wright's radical activities, as well as the activities of coalitions like the Midwest Academy, the Illinois Project Vote, and the "Public Allies" projects.
More troubling than any of the obvious, open, and/or stealth associations are the instances where Kurtz details the ways that President Obama "distorted" and "obfuscated" the record of his involvement with ACORN and his relationships with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his mentor, Bill Ayers. Kurtz notes that the deceptions include accounts in the president's memoir, Dreams of My Father. These deceptions, according to Kurtz, are dangerous because "we will be irreversibly down the path toward social transformation before we recognize as a nation what's at stake. The strategy of achieving socialism through a series of 'non-reformist reforms,' so popular among American's community organizing elite, is premised on precisely that deception."
The patterns of behavior, distortion, and rhetorical devices that characterize President Obama's rise to political prominence are disturbing on numerous fronts. The "obfuscation" about his past alignments and associations is particularly troubling, as is the evidence that he continues to govern as president under the same ideology that guided his past behavior and associations. If the driving forces behind his past political ideology and associations remain constant -- as Kurtz's account seems to substantiate beyond refutation -- the questions about his strategy for implementing his vision for change are legitimate and crucial for the future of our nation.
With the 2010 election just around the corner, Obama is engaging in a nationwide campaign similar to the one he waged for the presidency in 2008; his get-out-the-vote strategy is targeting the youth, minority, poor, and women's vote. As centrist independents, all varieties of conservatives plus Tea Party voters look at his past through the lens of Kurtz's exhaustive and thorough research, all have far more information about the "transformation" that the president promised in 2008. Through Kurtz's book, the political picture is crystal clear, and the president's purpose is painfully obvious.
What is equally certain from the evidence Kurtz presents is that the prospect for the nation's future depends upon the results of the 2010 and 2012 elections. We cannot, however, wait until 2012 to place checks and balances on the radical policies and purposes of this most ideologically driven of presidents. As Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., is author of Children at Risk (Transaction, 2010) and is senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute.
Sack Lunches
Now I do not know if this is true or not Snopes.com has it as undetermined. Frankly I don't give a shit this is how we should be writing about America's Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen and how they are treated by it's citizens.
Sack Lunches
I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned
seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought.
Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation.
'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me.
'Petawawa. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Afghanistan
After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached the east, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time...
As I reached for my wallet, I overheard a soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to base.'
His friend agreed.
I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq; it's almost like you are doing it for him.'
Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?'
'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class.
'This is your thanks.'
After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.
Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand and said, 'I want to shake your hand.' Quickly unfastening my seat belt I stood and took the Captain's hand.
With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.
Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.
When we landed I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!
Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.'
Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers.
As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of
meals. It seemed so little...
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
Sack Lunches
I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned
seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read. Perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought.
Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation.
'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me.
'Petawawa. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Afghanistan
After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached the east, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time...
As I reached for my wallet, I overheard a soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to base.'
His friend agreed.
I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq; it's almost like you are doing it for him.'
Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?'
'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class.
'This is your thanks.'
After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.
Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand and said, 'I want to shake your hand.' Quickly unfastening my seat belt I stood and took the Captain's hand.
With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.
Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.
When we landed I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!
Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.'
Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers.
As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of
meals. It seemed so little...
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
I'm Back...S.O.S. in Washington.
So why would I return now you ask. Is it because the republicans won the House back and closed the gap in the Senate? Hell no I could not give shit less about what happens in Washington. It just so happens that the huge project I have been working on at work is winding down. So I will be working less and typing more. Let's talk about the election. Lots of promises coming out of the mouths of republicans. Can they deliver? We'll see. Hopefully they will stick to their promises. But Washington D.C. is cesspool. It corrupts and changes people for the worst. Some people cannot shake drugs and it ruins their lives. Our elected politicians get sucked in to the abyss of money and power and it ruins our lives. But I am getting ahead of myself the new congress has not even been sat yet. We still have to watch what these current crop of douchebags are going to do in the next two months. Now is not the time for celebration now is the time for vigilance and steadfastness. The Reid/Pelosi faction of the Obama regime will pass all the anti-American legislation they can before they lose control of the congress. How will they get this done? Plain and simple the republican infighting, that has already begun, will get them to take their eyes off what the dems are doing and voila, we are a European state. With as always, an assist from the liberal media which will cover said infighting 24/7. As usual dear readers it is up to us. We are citizens not subjects and every asshole politician in America needs to be reminded of that fact.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
MICHAEL REAGAN: My Dad, Ronald Reagan, Warned Us About National Health Care
I got this off the Foxnews website everyone in America needs to read it. Hey Mike how about running for office you are exactly the type of man America needs. Just like your Dad. Thank you. And just like Bobby Allison said, "God bless Ronald Reagan!"
MICHAEL REAGAN: My Dad, Ronald Reagan, Warned Us About National Health Care
By Michael Reagan
Published November 03, 2010
FoxNews.com
Now that the elections are over the real work begins. My father, Ronald Reagan, warned us decades ago about “socialized medicine”. His words are as true today as they were in 1964.
If given the chance, he said then, the American people would reject a government take over of medicine and, by nearly every poll result, we did.
But Congress and the White House ran right over the will of the American people and enacted a takeover of a huge segment of our private economy. This is not the America directed by its citizens upon which our nation was founded. Instead, we have been misled, bamboozled and treated with utter contempt by elected officials drunk on power. Even faithful representation has been ignored:
- We were promised the health care act would not increase private insurance premiums or taxes but premium increases have already begun and new taxes are on the way.
- We were promised that senior citizens would not be harmed but with $500 billion in cuts to Medicare (to achieve patently phony “savings”), that cannot be true either and the elderly know it and now fear the future.
- It was promised that this legislation would finally control escalating health care costs but we got the opposite of cost controls. Without such controls, Congress has engineered increased demand against a finite supply of doctors and hospitals—a virtual guarantee that both the national debt and household bills will skyrocket.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was even caught on tape telling a roomful of San Francisco musicians that instead of worrying about finding gainful employment, they should pursue their artistic ambitions--because working Americans would be paying for their healthcare.
With nearly half of the country paying no income taxes, liberal politicians have calculated they can be elected forever with the votes of those who contribute little to the common good but who are given the fruits of the labors of those who do work.
This is what was meant when former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel arrogantly mused that the opportunities presented by the economic hardships facing the American people should not be “wasted.”
The health care law is a blatant attempt to restructure the political landscape to produce more of those who are dependent on redistribution of wealth and subservient to government benefactors. The problem being, of course, that we have run out of taxpayer money to give away and now we must borrow huge sums from overseas to satisfy this cynically false and inherently destructive promise.
For the good of the nation it will, as usual, fall to those who actually fight our wars, invent technology, grow our businesses and raise our next generations—average Americans from coast to coast—to undo the damage created by those who, most commonly, have never balanced business books, created any new business, served in the military or struggled to put food on the table—in other words, the political elite.
Only the American people have the combined clout to reverse the destructive course our leaders have set us on and, not a moment too soon, it’s about to happen.
Those who ran over the American people to enact Obamacare have been reminded this week about who really has the last word on American policy and politics. Here’s a hint—they don’t live in Washington, D.C.
As my father predicted, given the chance, the American people will reject socialized medicine.
The first order of business with our new Congress must be repeal of this assault on our economy and our own pocketbooks, preserving the proper relationship between doctors and patients and reviving the very idea of majority rule. If there is an impasse then the American people will resolve it in favor of the American people.
The rise of the Tea Parties, the growing number of independent voters and the rejection in one contest after another of political seats that “belong” to any party or political dynasty are evidence that the sleeping “silent majority” has awoken and is not happy with Washington's insider dealings, phony accounting, and cavalier attitudes toward the will of the people.
Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan, is leading the charge to repeal Obamacare at RepealHealthCareAct.org. He is chairman and founder of The Reagan Group, The Reagan Legacy Foundation and The Reagan Report.
MICHAEL REAGAN: My Dad, Ronald Reagan, Warned Us About National Health Care
By Michael Reagan
Published November 03, 2010
FoxNews.com
Now that the elections are over the real work begins. My father, Ronald Reagan, warned us decades ago about “socialized medicine”. His words are as true today as they were in 1964.
If given the chance, he said then, the American people would reject a government take over of medicine and, by nearly every poll result, we did.
But Congress and the White House ran right over the will of the American people and enacted a takeover of a huge segment of our private economy. This is not the America directed by its citizens upon which our nation was founded. Instead, we have been misled, bamboozled and treated with utter contempt by elected officials drunk on power. Even faithful representation has been ignored:
- We were promised the health care act would not increase private insurance premiums or taxes but premium increases have already begun and new taxes are on the way.
- We were promised that senior citizens would not be harmed but with $500 billion in cuts to Medicare (to achieve patently phony “savings”), that cannot be true either and the elderly know it and now fear the future.
- It was promised that this legislation would finally control escalating health care costs but we got the opposite of cost controls. Without such controls, Congress has engineered increased demand against a finite supply of doctors and hospitals—a virtual guarantee that both the national debt and household bills will skyrocket.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was even caught on tape telling a roomful of San Francisco musicians that instead of worrying about finding gainful employment, they should pursue their artistic ambitions--because working Americans would be paying for their healthcare.
With nearly half of the country paying no income taxes, liberal politicians have calculated they can be elected forever with the votes of those who contribute little to the common good but who are given the fruits of the labors of those who do work.
This is what was meant when former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel arrogantly mused that the opportunities presented by the economic hardships facing the American people should not be “wasted.”
The health care law is a blatant attempt to restructure the political landscape to produce more of those who are dependent on redistribution of wealth and subservient to government benefactors. The problem being, of course, that we have run out of taxpayer money to give away and now we must borrow huge sums from overseas to satisfy this cynically false and inherently destructive promise.
For the good of the nation it will, as usual, fall to those who actually fight our wars, invent technology, grow our businesses and raise our next generations—average Americans from coast to coast—to undo the damage created by those who, most commonly, have never balanced business books, created any new business, served in the military or struggled to put food on the table—in other words, the political elite.
Only the American people have the combined clout to reverse the destructive course our leaders have set us on and, not a moment too soon, it’s about to happen.
Those who ran over the American people to enact Obamacare have been reminded this week about who really has the last word on American policy and politics. Here’s a hint—they don’t live in Washington, D.C.
As my father predicted, given the chance, the American people will reject socialized medicine.
The first order of business with our new Congress must be repeal of this assault on our economy and our own pocketbooks, preserving the proper relationship between doctors and patients and reviving the very idea of majority rule. If there is an impasse then the American people will resolve it in favor of the American people.
The rise of the Tea Parties, the growing number of independent voters and the rejection in one contest after another of political seats that “belong” to any party or political dynasty are evidence that the sleeping “silent majority” has awoken and is not happy with Washington's insider dealings, phony accounting, and cavalier attitudes toward the will of the people.
Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan, is leading the charge to repeal Obamacare at RepealHealthCareAct.org. He is chairman and founder of The Reagan Group, The Reagan Legacy Foundation and The Reagan Report.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
High Tide
3 July, 1863
At this time the men are back in there own lines, the wounded try desperately to get back, the dead litter the battle in heaps of mangled gore. A bad idea carried out in true professionalism by the best fighting force assembled up to that time. The Army of Northern Virginia. Out of the woods they came to cross over a mile of open ground and attack the Union center at the angle in the stonewall adjacent to the copse of trees. Through solid shot onward they came, over and through fences onward they came, through grape shot and then canister onward they came. Huddled together leaning into the canon and rifle fire as if through rain. Onward these men came to the angle some made it to fight hand to hand and about thirty yards on passed the wall a confederate soldier died the "high tide" if you will.
I have stood at the Virginia monument across that great field and I with the help of history cannot for the life of me figure out how Lee could order that charge. I do not have training in any military or combat arts but this was not a good idea. Longstreet did not agree with Lee either it is why it took so long to for him to order Pickett forward. I can understand that but what I cannot forgive him for not ordering in the reserves especially when it was imminent that men were going to get to the angle. These men were left to fight and die for the southern cause all alone. If they did not win the day the South and the war were lost. Of course they were greatly outnumbered and were either killed or captured very few southerns got back to Seminary Ridge from the Angle. I have stood at the Angle and wondered what kind of man would walk in column across the field against heavy enfilading fire. I have read, somewhere, that 96% of the men who came across that that field, that sweltering summer day, did not even own slaves; still think this war was about slavery, on the southern side? Just regular men fighting to be free to live their lives as they see fit, an oppressive government comes in and forces them to live as it thinks they should, or at least as the abolitionist lobbyists think they should live. On the 50th anniversary of the battle the two sides took up their position once again and as the Confederate Veterans came out of the woods a gasp was heard coming from the stonewall over climbed the Union Veterans and they met in the middle. Such an awful mistake could not be repeated even the victors saw this fact.
Now I know that this charge did not cost the south the war. Other tide turners of the battle were; Ewell not taking Culps Hill on the first day, The 20th Maine holding off the Alabama boys and keeping the Union line for being rolled up on on the second day. But this charge ended the Army of Northern Virginia's dominance for the men left on that field were the heart and soul of the southern armies. Tomorrow Vicksburg will surrender and the South loses its independence on Independence Day 1863. Today we are close to having these same conditions for "civil war" only not north and south but liberal and conservative. Just remember: "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow too fond of it" -- General Robert E. Lee
At this time the men are back in there own lines, the wounded try desperately to get back, the dead litter the battle in heaps of mangled gore. A bad idea carried out in true professionalism by the best fighting force assembled up to that time. The Army of Northern Virginia. Out of the woods they came to cross over a mile of open ground and attack the Union center at the angle in the stonewall adjacent to the copse of trees. Through solid shot onward they came, over and through fences onward they came, through grape shot and then canister onward they came. Huddled together leaning into the canon and rifle fire as if through rain. Onward these men came to the angle some made it to fight hand to hand and about thirty yards on passed the wall a confederate soldier died the "high tide" if you will.
I have stood at the Virginia monument across that great field and I with the help of history cannot for the life of me figure out how Lee could order that charge. I do not have training in any military or combat arts but this was not a good idea. Longstreet did not agree with Lee either it is why it took so long to for him to order Pickett forward. I can understand that but what I cannot forgive him for not ordering in the reserves especially when it was imminent that men were going to get to the angle. These men were left to fight and die for the southern cause all alone. If they did not win the day the South and the war were lost. Of course they were greatly outnumbered and were either killed or captured very few southerns got back to Seminary Ridge from the Angle. I have stood at the Angle and wondered what kind of man would walk in column across the field against heavy enfilading fire. I have read, somewhere, that 96% of the men who came across that that field, that sweltering summer day, did not even own slaves; still think this war was about slavery, on the southern side? Just regular men fighting to be free to live their lives as they see fit, an oppressive government comes in and forces them to live as it thinks they should, or at least as the abolitionist lobbyists think they should live. On the 50th anniversary of the battle the two sides took up their position once again and as the Confederate Veterans came out of the woods a gasp was heard coming from the stonewall over climbed the Union Veterans and they met in the middle. Such an awful mistake could not be repeated even the victors saw this fact.
Now I know that this charge did not cost the south the war. Other tide turners of the battle were; Ewell not taking Culps Hill on the first day, The 20th Maine holding off the Alabama boys and keeping the Union line for being rolled up on on the second day. But this charge ended the Army of Northern Virginia's dominance for the men left on that field were the heart and soul of the southern armies. Tomorrow Vicksburg will surrender and the South loses its independence on Independence Day 1863. Today we are close to having these same conditions for "civil war" only not north and south but liberal and conservative. Just remember: "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow too fond of it" -- General Robert E. Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
