To many, the above title may seem much like speaking of the bright side to malignant cancer. And did it really come out of this writer’s pen? Long a staunch immigration critic, I’ve written many articles on the subject; Pat Buchanan used one of my lines in his book Death of the West; and Congressman John Conyers quoted me in the House on May 16, 2007, saying, “[C]onservative commentator Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any immigration (legal or not). He warned, ‘[R]eplace our population with a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer have a Western civilization, you no longer have America. You have Mexico North or Iran West.’” (Conyers wasn’t exactly in agreement.) And, no, it’s not that a pod from outer space has taken over my body or, worse yet, that I’ve become a liberal. I inveigh against all immigration still. I still oppose amnesty in all forms and under all guises. Nonetheless, the latter would have, perhaps, a small bright side.
This cannot be understood without grasping that illegal migration is not the problem.
It is an exacerbation of the problem.
What does this mean? Aren’t the only problems posed by migration ones unique to the illegal variety, such as an uncontrolled entry into our country that can allow diseases, terrorists and WMDs to cross our borders?
The real problem — the only one that really matters over the long term — is that we are importing socialist-oriented voters with mindsets contrary to Western ideals. This is because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA65), which created a situation wherein 85 percent of our new immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia. Moreover, the legislation has led to an increase in overall immigration from a historic average of 250,000 a year to approximately 1,000,000.
If you’re Obama and his fellow travelers and believe in “fundamentally” changing America, you love this because, upon being naturalized, approximately 80 percent of these newcomers will vote for you. You know Republicans get close to 90 percent of their votes from whites, so the formula for ideological conquest is simple: reduce the percentage of whites in America as much and as fast as possible. And INA65 certainly fits that bill. Non-Hispanic whites were close to 90 percent of the population in 1965.
Now they’re just under 63 percent.
And California is the model for the leftist hegemony in question. Once a solidly Republican state that launched Ronald Reagan to national prominence, it would not be carried by him in a presidential election today. The last time the state went Republican was 1988, when George H.W. Bush edged Michael Dukakis by four points. Since then no Democrat has carried the state by less than a double-digit margin; the best showing the GOP had was when it held Lurch-like John Kerry to 10 points. Obama won the state by 24 points in 2008 and 23 points in ’12. And in this year’s Republican wave election, it was considered an accomplishment that the GOP denied the Democrats supermajorities in CA’s legislative chambers.
Oh, did I mention that whites in CA are no longer even a plurality?
And here’s the reality:
Once the rest of the country looks like CA demographically, it will look like it politically.
This isn’t to say Republicans would disappear. They’d reinvent themselves as parties and politicians do, winning some elections by moving, to use our provisional terminology, “left.” It also must be mentioned that immigration isn’t the only factor in our decline; the media, academia and entertainment arena do a superb job fashioning leftist foot soldiers. And we should also note that with a world generally to the “left” of the US, it’s hard to imagine where we could find traditionalist immigrants; importing socialist Swedes, Germans and French is problematic as well. (A notable difference, however, is that while the latter assimilate into our more conservative white population, Hispanics often operate within America’s Hispanic milieu, which reinforces their socialist beliefs.)
Yet this is simply another reason why I adamantly oppose all (im)migration. When Ben Franklin famously answered the question of whether the 1787 Constitutional Convention had given us a republic or a monarchy by saying “A republic, if you can keep it,” there would have been no “ifs” about it if our nation had comprised mainly monarchical Englishmen. So the message here is simply a statement of the obvious: foreigners cannot be relied upon to preserve authentic Americanism because they’re not American. Full stop.
This is especially true when they harbor deep-seated un-American ideologies, hail from non-Western cultures and enter a multiculturalism-infected land that tells them “When in Rome…feel free to do as Ostrogoths would do.”
Despite this, most conservatives don’t get it. Imbued with what I’ve termed “immigrationism” and Proposition Nation pap, they’re very diligent about conserving the Immigration and Nationality Act status quo. An example that will shock many is Senator Ted Cruz, who last year proposed not only increasing the number of “high-skilled temporary workers fivefold” — as if there aren’t high-skilled Americans looking for jobs — but, unbelievably, also the doubling of legal immigration (the relevant portion of the video starts at 3:27).
Given that Cruz seems like a good man, I’ll just assume he’s out to lunch (in Tijuana) on this issue. But let’s be clear: if you had to pick your poison and choose just one culture-rending policy, a giant amnesty one year would be preferable to a giant legal-immigration increase applicable every year.
So what’s the bright side to amnesty? The well-known metaphor about a frog in a frying pan of water tells us that since frogs can’t sense incremental temperature changes, a very low flame under that pan may mean the creature will remain fixed in his position until he boils to death. In contrast, turn the burner up high enough and he’ll jump out and save himself.
Along with our many other problems, “Americans” (insofar as they still exist) are enduring the slow boil of cultural and demographic genocide. And executive amnesty, as with other kinds of leftist overreach, just may serve to turn that flame up high and rouse people from their torpor.
Yet this is the dimmest of bright sides, a 1-in-50 shot whose mention is mainly valuable in service to a larger point: we do need fundamental change. We need a revolution of mind, heart and spirit in which we return to our Christian foundation and dispense with moral relativism and all its corollaries — of which cultural relativism is one. Related to this, John Jay wrote in Federalist No. 2:
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs….
The “American experiment” was never meant to be one in which we could learn if, for the first time in history, a nation could intensely balkanize itself and — by rebranding it “diversity” — survive.
I do not believe the US will survive long in its present form. And when chroniclers finally write The Rise and Fall of the American Republic, they may record that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was the most destructive legislation in her history, a turning point from which there was no turning back.
How is your life going under the Global Empire? If you answer honestly, for non billionaires, the response must reflect disappointment if not immense distress. Middle America stands on the precipice of oblivion. While the recent past decades have shown steep declines in financial security and net wealth, the future looks much more ominous. The link between the shift to an internationalist de-industrialization economy and open border immigration has hit the United States hard. This harsh reality is routinely denied in the financial press, but the social chaos that engulfs society is largely caused by this betrayal mindset. Corporatists are waging war against the American public.
Summing up the battle lines is the quintessential voice of an America First philosophy. Pat Buchanan on Free Trade is a collection of quotations and references that should be a must read for every displaced citizen. And that group includes virtually everyone.
“Good for global business” isn’t necessarily good for US
“Global capitalists have become acolytes of global governance. They wish to see national sovereignty diminished and sanctions abolished. Where yesterday American businesses suffered damage to their good name for selling scrap iron to Japan before Pearl Harbor, today [war materiel is routinely exported] to potentially hostile nations. Once it was true that what was good the Fortune 500 was good for America. That is no longer true, and what is good for America must take precedence.”
Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.349 , Oct 9, 1999
The most puzzling malady that penetrates the “PC” culture is a fear of confronting the direct consequences of encouraging an invasion of illegal’s into the country. The disconnect that sweeps across national borders is not isolated just to the United States. Western Europe is not only in decay but is on the verge of social and economic collapse.
Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, wrote in his Sep. 2005 Migration Policy Institute essay “The Global Struggle with Illegal Migration: No End in Sight”: How Are Illegal Immigration and Globalization Related?
“For nearly two decades now, capital and the market for goods, services, and workers of many types have weaved an ever more intricate web of global economic and social interdependence… No aspect of this interdependence seems to be more visible to the public of advanced industrial societies than the movement of people. And no part of that movement is proving pricklier to manage effectively, or more difficult for publics to come to terms with, than irregular (also known as unauthorized, undocumented, or illegal) migration…”
Dr. Papademetriou’s assumption that interdependency is the new normal may be supported with the procession of the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order”. Nonetheless, the destruction of national sovereignty is a price that no country can afford to adopt, much less pay and remain a nation. Interdependency is the death knell of traditional values, autonomous commerce and individual civil liberties. With the ringing of the bell at the NY Stock exchange, the sound of prosperity goes deaf for the populist, while globalist elites extract the last pound of flesh from an intentionally designed consolidation of a Corporatocracy economy.
The fate of the world is at stake if the forces of globalization are left to complete their total domination of monetary and financial control. It is just as important to prevent the next bipartisan arrangement to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegal foreigners, who have shown little interest to assimilate or adopt the heritage and values of our founding principles.
Warren Mass wrote over a year ago in Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border.
“An important part of regulating legal immigration, in addition to evaluating each prospective immigrant’s ability to become a productive, law-abiding citizen, is to determine how many immigrants the United States is capable of absorbing each year, taking into consideration the impact on our nation’s economy and culture.”
If this standard needs to apply to those who apply for citizenship, by what absurd twist of logic or sanity pertains to President Obama’s intentions of issuing executive orders that are clearly unconstitutional? How insulting it is to hard press citizens, relegated to enduring impoverishment from off shoring livable wage jobs, while awarding effective amnesty to illegals.
Columnist Glenn R. Jackson review of author Kenneth Buchdahl’s book, Dismantling The American Dream: Globalization, Free Trade, immigration, Unemployment, Poverty, Debt, Foreign Dependency hits the mark.
“First and foremost it is good to see the recognition by Buchdahl of American culture as critical to the building of the American Dream. As Buchdahl writes the development of a culture is grounded in a unique American personality and intricate system of values and beliefs that is responsible for America’s enviable situation. And it is that enviable situation that has contributed to creating the forces that are working rapidly, knowingly or not, to dismantle the American Dream.
Dismantling the American Dream chronicles the unintended impact of America’s pop culture belief in globalization as a force for good in our economy and the failure of leadership to recognize that belief gone awry. America’s political leaders continued belief in free trade and give-away trade deals, in the face of the near deathblow of NAFTA to American manufacturing is but one of the delusions of globalization that Buchdahl lays bare.”
The interjection of cultural aspects may well be the missing link that escapes most chronicles on current events. Documenting the actual results from Free Trade Treaties, should in and of itself win the intellectual argument that economic destruction of Middle America has already happened. Add in the deliberate call for mass migration and social incentives to cross the border has created the latest flood in undocumented aliens.
When Democracy Now asks, Obama & McConnell Pledge Cooperation; Will Fast-Tracking Secretive TPP Trade Deal Top Their Agenda?, and presents Ralph Nader on TPP and the “Unstoppable” Left-Right Anti-Corporate Movement, one has hope that the Buchanan Brigades message is being heard.
With the celebrity coronation that the Democrats are showering on their new favorite daughter, the “Pocahontas Princess”, Elizabeth Warren’s Crusade Against Disastrous “Free Trade” Agreements, is welcomed.
An inquiry was made to NY Senator Charles E. Schumer on the TPA, Trade Priorities Act of 2014 (S.1900). His reply can be read on this link.
An alliance among anti-free trade factions from all ideological camps is necessary to stop the globalist juggernaut. Even if such a coalition could be grown, the likelihood that linkage to the need to stop illegal immigration and opposition to amnesty, would be frosty.
This brings up the opportunity to interject the appeal, WE MUST NOT SURRENDER TO IMMIGRATION AMNESTY, by Frosty Wooldridge. ““Why would any member of Congress who opposes executive amnesty provide President Obama the funds to carry it out? A Republican majority must force congressional Democrats to answer this question through their votes”.
Likewise, why would as covered in the New American essay, Republicans to Obama: We Will Give You Trade Promotion Authority, patriots want to grant “fast track” authority to a President, who is defiant to congressional constitutional separation of powers?
“Fast track authority eventually expired on April 16, 1994, and was not reauthorized by Congress until the passage of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act (BPTAA) of 2002. BPTAA reinstated fast track authority renamed as “trade promotion authority” (TPA), which expired in 2007. In 2012, President Obama requested renewal of TPA/fast track authority to complete negotiations for the TPP and TTIP.”
The answer should be apparent that any support of “fast track” or for TPP is a vote bought with globalist control. If it is so obvious that such influence is at play in trade deals, why are so many confused activists not able to see through the “Open Border” fraud and act upon the best interests for American workers and families?
That taboo culture factor, covered in the Buchdahl book explains the blind spot from the Loony Left. A review of a pro immigration site, Open Borders will demonstrate a systemic disconnect from reality. Often Libertarian purists, also fall under the spell of a transcendental fantasy. To their credit, Open Borders presents the concept of CITIZENISM and provides the following its key features.
Citizenism places substantially greater weight on the rights and interests of citizens than non-citizens, though it operates within moral side-constraints.
Citizenism is about current citizens, not about the people who may become citizens as a result of immigration or deportation policy.
Citizenism, as conceived by its original proponent Sailer, is both about the individual ethics of voters and about the responsibilities of elected representatives.
Citizenism is about loyalty, not admiration, toward one’s fellow citizens.
If you understand the destructive nature of corporatist trade agreements that only benefit transnational conglomerates, while poisoning economic commerce for Middle Americans, why would you not oppose the lunacy of unrestrictive mass migration? The imperative moral directive is to protect and defend your own nation, its traditional culture and responsible citizens.
Saving the world is a concept that resides in the sick minds of the Save the Planet Kill Yourself mindset. If they are so devoted to a globalist utopia, the influx of trespassers must be leaving their own homeland in better shape. Just how well is life south of the border doing?
There’s stupid. There’s really stupid. There’s really, really stupid.
Then there’s Democrat stupid.
A prime example is a Friday Wall Street Journal article titled “This Democrat Is Giving Up on ObamaCare.” It’s penned by one Burke Beu, someone I describe as “ethnically Democrat,” as he says “I grew up in a Democratic family. I have been a registered Democrat since age 18.” He also tells us, “[I was] a Democratic candidate for statewide office in Colorado and a party precinct captain in that caucus state. I’ve volunteered for numerous Democratic candidates and contributed to party causes and campaigns. The 2014 election results were extremely disappointing for me….”
And, of course, Mr. Beu has soured on ObamaCare. In fact, he wants it repealed. All good so far. Except that he doesn’t have any explicitly harsh words for Obama, hasn’t given up on his party, wants a single-payer system and seems to believe Hillary Clinton is the solution in 2016. (Note: In fairness, Clinton is different from Obama — she has two X chromosomes.) But here are the money lines:
I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, then lost my job in the Great Recession. I was lucky; my brother lost his job and his house. I survived on part-time jobs while paying out-of-pocket for my health insurance.
I voted for President Obama again in 2012, then received a cancellation notice for my health insurance. This was due to ObamaCare, the so-called Affordable Care Act. However, I couldn’t afford anything else.
Does this guy wear a “Kick me” sign?
He wears a “Kick me harder” sign.
There’s a saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” What do you say about a guy whose life consists of being fooled?
Beu believes Medicare should be “a model for health-care reform” and says “We Democrats need to get over ourselves, start anew on a national health-care policy, and return to our progressive principles.”
Actually, sir, you need to get over your party.
First, “progressive principles” is an oxymoron; liberals don’t have principles, but provisional positions. This is because they’re governed by emotion, which changes with the wind. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.” No, I won’t explain that, Mr. Beu. You figure it out.
Beu also mentions the “stupidity of the American voter” remark by ObamaCare designer Jonathan Gruber, taking umbrage and saying “Such comments…are insults to every citizen regardless of party.” So Goober is offended by Gruber.
And Beu is one of those very “useful” people. He doesn’t get that elitist snobbery and superciliousness define the left. Just think of the revelations about socialist French president François Hollande, who is “a cold, cynical cheat and a Socialist who ‘doesn’t like the poor,’” writes National Post about insights provided by the leftist’s ex-girlfriend Valérie Trierweiler. “He presents himself as the man who doesn’t like the rich. In reality, the president doesn’t like the poor” and in private calls them “the toothless ones,” reports Trierweiler. Oh, too anecdotal? “Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned”? Then read the 2008 piece “Don’t listen to the liberals — Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.” It relates what some of us without “Kick me” signs figured out for ourselves long ago.
Beu also says, when pointing out that Democrats need to exhibit humility and admit error on ObamaCare, “We resent Republicans who act morally superior and pretend to have a monopoly on patriotism, but….”
It’s not pretense, Bucko. As this Pew poll from this summer shows, while 72 percent of “steadfast conservatives” and 81 percent of “business conservatives” “often feel proud to be American,” only 40 percent of “solid liberals” do. That, Mr. Beu, is by liberals’ own admission. (Pew also has a category in the poll called “Faith and Family Left.” I’ve never heard of such a thing — unless it refers to faith in government and the family of the person the liberal is cheating on his spouse with.)
Note also that when liberals and conservatives don’t feel proud to be American, it’s for very different reasons. Liberals don’t like what America was, was meant to be, and what they often imagine it to be (“We’re so Puritan!”); conservatives don’t like the cesspool the liberals are turning it into.
I know schadenfreude isn’t a feeling reflective of a charitable spirit, but the best I can say about the Beus of the world is that they need tough love. Mr. Beu reminds me of a guy who’s being held by the back of the neck, is being repeatedly and violently kicked, and complains about how something needs to be done about the foot. Tend to the foot. Regulate the foot. Repeal the foot.
Mr. Beu, that foot happens to be attached to a man, a being with intellect and free will. And he is not your friend.
What’s going on with our police? More and more, it seems that our men in blue have been transformed from a friendly neighborhood peace office, whose mission is to protect and serve, to a hostile military force, whose mission is to harass and intimidate.
I am going to broach a subject in this syndicated column this week that people such as me are not supposed to talk about. By people such as me, I mean Christians, “conservatives,” Republican-types, etc. “We” are NEVER supposed to criticize the police–not in any shape, manner, or form. ANY criticism of all things police (and military, for that matter) is immediately deemed to be “left-wing,” “unpatriotic,” etc. To criticize the police in any way brings immediate and vehement accusations that one is against law and order or is a “bleeding heart liberal,” etc. But, in all probability, the vast majority of “our” folks will simply ignore this column. My observation is “WE” are mostly very closed-minded and don’t tolerate ideas that are outside the box of what is heard on FOX NEWS or from today’s milquetoast preachers.
However, it is an absolute fact that today’s law enforcement agencies are more and more being militarized and are becoming more and more hostile to the American citizenry. More and more, police officers view the American people as “enemy combatants” and are developing a deeply imbedded “us versus them” mindset. More and more, police officers are behaving like soldiers, not peace officers. Examples of police abuse are becoming more and more frequent and more and more severe. If this breach of the public trust is not reined in soon, it is going to get very ugly in this country.
When I grew up, we were all taught that policemen were our friends and that we could always trust them. Hardly anyone teaches that to their children anymore–and for good reason. Too many policemen have abused and misused the trust that the American people have placed in them. I’m sorry if you don’t like to hear that–I don’t enjoy saying that–but it is the honest truth.
More and more often, routine traffic stops quickly escalate into full-fledged police abuse over the most innocent conduct. Too many police officers today have developed an “I-have-a-badge-and-a-gun-and-
One does not have to search long to find limitless examples of what I am talking about.
In the State of New York, a police sergeant is under investigation for slapping around a law-abiding young man simply because he asked the officer why he was demanding to search his vehicle. After the young man questioned the sergeant, who is a 27-year veteran of the police force, the officer slapped the man and yelled that he could “rip your f****** head off and s*** down your neck.” The only reason an internal investigation is going on is because another passenger video-recorded the event.
See the report:
In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a police officer threatened to “beat the s***” out of a young man for simply looking at him. That’s right. All the young man did was look at him as he walked down the street.
In Miami, Florida, a police officer went ballistic with rage after a young man, whom he had just given a traffic ticket to, said, “God bless you.” That simple remark set off a profanity-laced tirade from the officer in which he took out his handcuffs and threatened to put the young man in jail.
See the report:
In East Dublin, Georgia, drug task force police officers gunned down an innocent grandfather in his own home on the word of a self-confessed meth addict. Police executed a no-knock invasion of the home and killed the innocent 59-year-old businessman who had armed himself to protect his family from what he could only determine were armed home invaders. The resident was killed in a hail of gunfire by police. He was completely innocent of any drug offenses. Police acted as judge, jury, and executioner of the poor man.
See the report:
In Boynton Beach, Florida, two young men were pulled over by police in a traffic stop. One of the young men began to video-record the officers. Quickly, the policemen became enraged and began physically assaulting the young men. One officer pointed his pistol at the boys and threatened to immediately shoot them. At no point did the young men display a weapon or physically assault the officers. Granted, the young men acted rudely and disrespectfully. But since when in America is cockiness and rudeness a potential death sentence?
But the worst part of the story came afterward when the chief of police issued a statement defending the conduct of the officers. Chief Jeffrey Katz viewed the video tape (recorded by a passenger in the car) and said the following: “When I watch this video, I don’t see a car full of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with FEAR OF THE POLICE.” (Emphasis added)
See the report here:
Did you get that? The police chief and his officers were angry that the young men didn’t FEAR the police enough.
So, that’s it. We are supposed to FEAR the police. Really? Then, pray tell, who are the police supposed to fear? My father didn’t teach me to fear the police. He taught me to respect the police. And he taught me that the police were my friends. He did not teach me that I had to fear for my rights and my very life every time I’m pulled over for a traffic stop. And that’s not the way that Sheriff Cliff Arnold’s deputies behaved while I was growing up.
And, again in the State of Georgia, Henry County Police forced a small group of fifth graders to the ground at gunpoint as they attempted to build a tree fort in their neighborhood. Can you imagine? Throwing 11-year-old children to the ground and putting a gun to their heads for building a tree fort? This is reality in modern America’s burgeoning Police State.
See the report here:
These kinds of reports are virtually endless.
Am I suggesting that all sheriff’s deputies and police officers behave in such fashion? Of course not! I am confident that the vast majority of our men and women in blue (and brown for sheriff’s deputies) are honest, law-abiding people who are doing their best to keep the peace and who respect the rights of the citizens they are charged to serve. But I am saying that the training procedures and mindset of our police agencies nationwide IS quickly developing into a police-state mentality. And the everyday occurrences such as those listed above absolutely prove my assertion. It is also an undeniable fact that more and more police training omits teaching the Constitution and, accordingly, more and more police officers are truly ignorant of the rights and liberties of the American people under the U.S. Constitution.
Based on current statistical data, you and I are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than we are an actual terrorist. Since 2001, over 5,000 American citizens have been killed by policemen. How many of these deaths were truly justified we will never know as police departments and courts of law have a proven track record of hardly ever charging an officer with wrongful death.
Add to the above the fact that even many minor incidents will often result in SWAT teams being deployed. In fact, Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska documents research showing, “There has been more than a 1,400% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or callouts, between 1980 and 2000. Today, an estimated 45,000 SWAT-team deployments are conducted yearly among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s there was an average of about 3,000.”
See Kraska’s report here:
Has violent crime increased 1,400 percent during that time? Not at all. In fact, for the last several years, violent crime has been decreasing to the point that currently it is at record lows. So, how can the need for SWAT teams increase by 1,400 percent? It is the result of Washington, D.C., deliberately militarizing our police agencies.
I am convinced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is intentionally turning our State and local police agencies against us. Washington, D.C., is deliberately militarizing our police agencies. Give them military equipment, weapons, training, etc., and they will start acting like soldiers, not policemen. And that is exactly what is happening.
The phrase that we hear constantly repeated today by law enforcement personnel and spokesmen is “the safety of the officer.” But wait a minute! The sworn duty of a police officer is to obey the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), which is designed to protect the rights, liberties, and safely of the American people. The role of the police officer is to protect the safety of the public. Any man or woman who volunteers to put on a badge should be consciously willing to put his or her life on the line to protect the public. That’s what their job is all about. And no one forces them to take this risk; they take it of their own volition.
Of course the men and women of law enforcement want to go home at the end of their shift. But so do the people of their community. Policemen are not the only ones who face hostility and threats of violence. I have had my life threatened too many times to count. I have even been shot at. (I would venture to say that the vast majority of police officers in the country have never actually been shot at.) I have had my family threatened. And none of us wear Kevlar vests and helmets and can call backup with the push of a button (calling 911 is not the same as a policeman calling for back up–not even close).
If the safety of the officer is the primary duty of policemen, they should just shoot suspects on sight and eliminate the threat before it exists. And that is pretty much what they do in totalitarian countries. But this is America where the rule of law and the rights of the individual reign supreme. In a free country, people are judged to be innocent until proven guilty. Plus, the only lawful reason a police officer has to fire his weapon at someone is for the same reason that the rest of us can do so: for self-defense against an imminent threat to their (our) lives.
Again, the impetus of the militarization of police is coming directly from DHS. In addition to receiving military equipment, hardware, attack helicopters, tanks, etc., from the DOD and DHS, more and more often U.S. military Special Forces troops are being employed to train our local police personnel. To the miscreants inside the Beltway, the American people are seen as the real terrorists, not foreign enemies or the criminal gang members that are pouring across our southern border. In truth, DHS is using our local police agencies in much the same way that the Nazi government used the local police agencies inside the occupied countries of Europe. And, unfortunately, it seems that most of our Christians, “conservatives,” and Republican-types are completely oblivious to the problem.
I applaud the numerous constitutionalist sheriffs around the country who are doing their best to maintain constitutional government within their counties and who are courageously resisting the efforts of DHS to turn their deputies into Storm Troopers. I just wish we had a lot more of these stalwart defenders of liberty. The American people are not doing a very good job of electing these kinds of patriots to public office, including the sheriff’s office. But on the whole, our sheriff’s offices around the country are far less oppressive than their counterparts in city police departments. The obvious reason for this is due to the fact that, while the sheriff is a constitutionally elective office, our chiefs of police are usually appointed by some sort of city council and are not answerable directly to the public. Bureaucrats are seldom known for any kind of allegiance to constitutional government.
And, again, this column is not an indictment against any of our law-abiding, liberty-loving, policemen and sheriff’s deputies. And I suggest that any policeman who would take umbrage at this column is subconsciously incriminating him or herself. Of all people, police officers, themselves, should be the most angry when their fellow officers betray the public trust and violate fundamental rights. A bad cop reflects badly on good cops. Therefore, instead of reacting angrily against a column such as this, it should behoove honest policemen to lead the charge against this kind of unlawful conduct being committed by their brethren in blue. They should also be the ones to most doggedly resist the militarization of their agencies by DHS.
However, this column IS an indictment against the current trend within law enforcement to become increasingly federalized, militarized, and Gestapo-like. I suppose it is also an indictment against the American people (including Christians, “conservatives,” and Republican-types) who seem to be blind and apathetic to what is becoming a major problem within our country.
You just have to love the wit and precision of a political image. Pat Dollard’s title NY Post Destroys Obama With Brutal Cover, says it all. The arrogant despot was indeed STRIPPED! The belated question is why did it take so long? In order to answer the obvious, most political analysts’ will fall into the partisan trap of party politics. Hope and change finally was seen as dictatorial haughtiness. Most voters do not believe that they are deceived by skilled liars when they cast their ballot. Yet, that is a pattern that is uninterrupted in most elections. Only the style of administrations differs, while the establishment continues to pull the strings and policies to move the consolidation of the New World Order forward.
That Nefarious Warrior Organism is eager to accelerate the next stage of the master plan. Under an openly NeoCon front, John McCain’s chairmanship of a Senate Armed Services Committee will get to pressure the public into believing that their national security requires vigorous interventionism. Before you think that the Democrats differ from this same post WWII strategy, it would be best to brush up on a necessary history lesson.
Obama never attempted to confront, much less reverse the foreign policy of defending an empire. At the core of American power is the use of force that threatens any regime, which will not capitulate to the dictates of the financial elites that put Obama in office. The same can be said for most of the presidencies from FDR onward. The mere attempt to buck this system got JFK killed and Reagan shot. Yet to even mention such vial thoughts earns the historiographer a place in the conspiracy hall of infamy.
The abandonment of truth is a primary requirement to be part of the system. The reverse also applies. To be a successful player in the corridors of power, the skills of deception and prevarication must be demonstrated. Obama excelled in this task. However, his usefulness is now over.
For the indoctrinated clones that only see politics through a progressive lens, dealing with defeat seems inconceivable. Conversely, the novice supporters of Republican candidates vote with the erroneous belief that the country will now get back on track. Both crowds operate in a mindset that does not work in the real world.
Winning a GOP majority in the Senate removes the crook Harry Reid and his Mafioso tactics but the added seats in the House just gives Boehner flexibility to ignore Tea Party representatives. When you hear of an atmosphere of collaboration between Obama and the new anticipated Senate leader Mitch McConnell, you should shudder.
Democracy Now provides a correct assessment on Obama & McConnell Pledge Cooperation; Will Fast-Tracking Secretive TPP Trade Deal Top Their Agenda?
“We get analysis from Lori Wallach of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, who notes that while some analysts say GOP gains will accelerate the passage of fast-track legislation in Congress to enable an agreement on the TPP, “it is kind of hard for the Republicans to voluntarily delegate more authority to the guy they’ve been attacking as the imperial president who grabs power that’s not his.” The controversial so-called free trade deal involves 12 countries and nearly 40 percent of the global economy. Trade ministers from the 12 countries negotiating the trade deal are due to meet in Beijing ahead of the Asia-Pacific economic summit next week to continue negotiations.”
Oh if only such logic would be applied to the deal making sell out process. Here is a central point to most political arrangements. Forget about compromises, the deal boils down to serving the interests of the shady figures behind the officials. Corporatist Republicans want to continue the globalism sellout just as much as the Democrat partisans, who take the same contributions from the financial elites.
No honest observers of the nuclear fallout from the Reid run Senate can conclude that passing legislation through the conference process with the House was ever considered. Will the new GOP Senate leadership return to the 60 vote filibuster tradition? This test will determine if any optimism would return.
In a racy post on Facebook, the always provocative Karen De Coster asks: “Why the F$%K – Does a Congress with a 10% approval rating has a 90% Re-election rate?” Reelection Rates Over the Years provides added evidence of this tragedy.
Maybe the immediate query should be why the newly elected Republican Senators would vote for a known deal maker betrayer of principles like McConnell as their leader? For a more detailed analysis of Expectations after the 2014 Elections, the Radical Reactionary essay is worthy of a read.
THE MEGALOMANICALITY OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA cites the Obama the Insane comes out with this… Delusional behavior occurs next out of a mad man.
- EXCERPT: “The American people sent a message,’ he claimed, ‘one that they’ve sent for several elections now. They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions, and not ours.”
- EXCERPT: “Our economy is outpacing most of the world. But we’ve just gotta keep at it. Much of that will take action from Congress. And I’m eager to work with the next Congress.”
- EXCERPT: “He said he would only work with Republicans if they seek to ‘make responsible changes’ to the law. I’m going to be very receptive to hearing those ideas. Despite all the contention,” Obama claimed, “we now know that the law works.”
- EXCERPT: “Executive orders,” he said, “will be replaced and supplanted by a bill from Congress. You send me a bill that I can sign and those executive actions go away. But what I’m not gonna do is just wait.”
For some unsolicited advice for any honorable Democrats left in their party, consider the following. Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review floated this option back in October 2010, Invoke the 25th Amendment To Remove Obama. Undoubtedly the situation has worsened dramatically since then. “LaRouche demanded the invocation of the 25th Amendment, which provides for the orderly removal of a President, and his replacement by the Vice President, due to physical or mental impairment.”
The actual 25th amendment says:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Barack Hussein Obama thinks he is an emperor but is actually a dysfunctional psychopath. His dictates need to be ignored and his irrelevancy demands his replacement. Since the Congress does not have the courage to impeach this unhinged traitor, the Democratic careerists need to step up, (for no better reason) than to save their own skins.
Even a two year term under Joe “wacko” Biden would be preferable to an insane sociopath with his finger on the nuclear button.
Discard any pure or noble reasons for adopting such a removal process. Bank on sheer self-interest to blame all the failures on the best fall guy since Richard Nixon. The establishment needs a cover-up to distract the public from the coming economic collapse. When a liar commander in chief no longer is believable, his clothes are STRIPPED from the throne.
Republicans must feel maximum heat NOT to save Obama. Those cowardly chicken hawks will bomb anyone on the globe to maintain the empire, but will not lift a finger to remove a modern day Emperor Justin II. Praetorian Prefect warns of a bi-partisan malady. Now it is time to act and dispatch Obama to a disgraceful internment.
Just as I predicted in this column last week, the GOP has captured the U.S. Senate, which means they now control both houses of Congress in Washington, D.C. But, if you recall, I also said that even if Republicans become the majority party in the Senate, it will not change impending amnesty for illegal aliens (or most anything else).
See my column here:
Too many Republicans are as desirous of some sort of amnesty deal as are Democrats. Republicans like to call it “pathway to citizenship,” but the result is the same: millions of illegals will get an amnesty deal. Get used to the idea, folks; it is inevitable. The fact that the vast majority of the American people are AGAINST amnesty will not stop it from happening. (Anyone remember the giveaway of the Panama Canal?) Our “lords” and “masters” in Washington, D.C., (from both major parties) have determined that giving millions of illegals legal status is good for America. And, after all, our “masters” believe themselves to have God-like wisdom and power, so what you and I think about it doesn’t matter to a tinker’s dam. Besides, our politicians in Washington, D.C., don’t answer to We the People; they answer to a higher power–and, no, I’m not talking about the Almighty or the U.S. Constitution.
Breitbart.com covers the story:
“Hours after Mitt Romney declared that Republicans should pass amnesty legislation if the GOP takes back Congress, Pat Caddell blasted the incompetent Republican establishment for being beholden to their ‘other masters’ and not nationalizing the illegal immigration issue.
“On Breitbart News Sunday, Caddell, the Fox News analyst and former Jimmy Carter adviser who long ago figured out that Americans were disenchanted with politics because they hated the permanent political class, said ‘Republicans have failed to put a race away’ this cycle even though Obama’s numbers are so low and ‘there is such anxiety about the future of the country.’
“‘They are just like watching French and British generals in World War I,’ Caddell said of the GOP establishment to host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon. ‘They learn nothing and forget everything. It’s amazing.’
“Caddell said Republicans have failed to offer the country a ‘positive message’ and nationalize the election against Obama’s agenda. He said Americans dislike ‘intensely both political parties’ because ‘they feel they are getting screwed–and they are.’ Caddell said that since Obama said his policies are on the ballot, Republicans should have had a simple message: ‘If you’re against those policies, send President Barack Obama a message. Vote Republican.’
“But Caddell said Republican establishment advisers ‘have other masters,’ and that is why GOP candidates are not running against illegal immigration. Caddell acknowledged that the ‘immigration issue is the single biggest switch I have seen on an issue.’ Americans, Caddell said, have been ‘changed on immigration’ and are against President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty after ‘what’s happened the last three months ever since the children showed up and Breitbart [News]’ published leaked photos of illegal immigrant children being warehoused.”
The report goes on to say, “Regarding amnesty and illegal immigration, Caddell noted that establishment Republicans even in the South are generally ‘not allowed to speak of it’ because they have ‘higher orders’ to obey from their ‘other masters.’
“‘The political class of the Republican party is interested in two things: preserving positions and getting money,’ Caddell said, mentioning that ‘even moderates and Democrats are upset about executive amnesty.’
“Obama, realizing that immigration is his worst issue, delayed his executive amnesty to give Senate Democrats a better chance at retaining control. He said Americans hate both parties in a country in which people believe the American Dream is fading, and the bipartisan support in D.C. for amnesty legislation ‘is a big part of it.’
“But he said the media establishment conceals the true reason–like the bipartisan support of amnesty–that Americans hate Washington because they favor policy outcomes like comprehensive amnesty legislation.
“Caddell thunderously said that ‘the political media class keep telling the American people to eat what they won’t eat.’”
See the report here:
Finally, someone on the national stage has the guts to tell the truth about Washington, D.C. Caddell said Republican establishment advisors “have other masters.” He also said that establishment Republicans are generally “not allowed to speak of it” [amnesty] because they have “higher orders” to obey from their “other masters.” He is exactly right.
Caddell went on to say that, “The political class of the Republican party is interested in two things: preserving positions and getting money.” Right again!
If President Obama goes ahead with his plans to sign an executive amnesty order, watch the GOP on Capitol Hill holler and scream; but the most they will likely do is try to make it a campaign issue in 2016. Or, if they do anything at all besides holler, it will be to try to replace “executive” amnesty with “legislative” amnesty. The real issue is the Republicans want to take the credit for providing amnesty to millions of illegals away from the Democrats.
But, you say, “The vast majority of the American people (especially Republicans) OPPOSE amnesty.” And you are right. But, you are forgetting the fact that establishment Republicans have “higher orders” and “other masters.”
The two major issues that precipitated the anger and angst of the American electorate against Barack Obama and the Democrats, resulting in the Elephants taking the Senate away from the Donkeys, were: 1) Obamacare, and 2) Amnesty. But absolutely NO ONE inside the GOP leadership is even talking about doing anything to undo Obamacare; and NO ONE inside the GOP leadership is even talking about doing anything to stop amnesty. Therefore, the Senate changing hands will, in effect, accomplish NOTHING. And that’s the way it’s been for years. And this is the reason that more people don’t vote than do.
We have been trading Democrats for Republicans–and vice versa–for decades, and what has it mattered? Not diddly-squat. The beat goes on: bigger and bigger government; more and more regulations; more and more taxes; more and more government spending; more and more foreign wars; more and more government surveillance on the American citizenry; more and more centralized power in Washington, D.C.; more and more illegal immigration (soon to all be legalized); ad infinitum; ad nauseam.
The truth is, who we send to Washington, D.C., with very few exceptions, hasn’t made a dime’s worth of difference in decades. The establishment insiders within both major parties make sure that the good guys are defeated in the primaries, so by the time the general election rolls around, we are usually left with the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. No matter which one wins, establishment insiders get the prize, and the American people get the shaft.
To a large degree, this is not the case in local and State elections. We often have the opportunity to elect true freedomists at those levels–even after the establishment winnowing process takes place during the primaries. That’s why the goal of the insiders in Babylon, I mean Washington, D.C., is to federalize everything and, thereby, negate the power of State and local governments to offer any significant resistance. (Just try to think of something meaningful that hasn’t been federalized. See what I mean?)
Remember, the establishment elite within the GOP (and the Dems, for that matter) have “other masters.” And until the American people at large begin to awaken to this reality, this charade that is played out every two years between Democrats and Republicans will continue to frustrate the electorate and empower the establishment elite.
The awakening to the existence of “other masters” is extremely difficult when we have a tightly controlled national media. The isolated warnings of people such as Pat Caddell are drowned out in a national cacophony of controlled establishment shills. Even when anti-establishment crusaders such as Barry Goldwater, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, etc., come along, the political and media elite see to it that such men are characterized as “extremists” or “unviable” candidates, which leads a gullible electorate prone to dismiss them as non-factors.
As I see it, the ONLY people who are in a position to have the independent power to change the debate, awaken the conscience of the people, and turn the ship of State around are America’s pastors. Unfortunately, today’s pastors and churches are as controlled by “other masters” as are our politicians and newscasters.
We desperately need another Great Awakening; and I mean SOON!
If you are waiting for the newly-elected Republicans in the U.S. Senate to change things, you are going to be waiting for a very long time. We have played this song before back in 1994 and again in 2002. The GOP did nothing to change things back then; and they will do nothing to change things now. Remember, the party establishment answers to “other masters.”
If you truly want to see a change in our country, quit concentrating so much about who the congressman or senator is that you are going to vote for, and try voting with your feet and start “electing” pastors who are willing to sound the clarion call of liberty and who are willing to awaken the American conscience to the fundamental principles of liberty upon which our country was founded. Until brave and courageous champions of liberty occupy our church’s pulpits, it isn’t going to matter to a tinker’s dam who occupies the House and Senate on Capitol Hill.
The names Catherine Engelbrecht and Reggie B. Walton may not exactly be household names, but both are part of a disturbing court ruling that can only be described as a reprehensible government protection racket in plain sight for all to see. Ms. Engelbrecht was the plaintiff and Reggie B. Walton the judge. A succinct summary is provided by Breitbart in the report, True the Vote’s Lawsuit against IRS Gets Tossed by Federal Judge.
“A federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order dismissing a lawsuit filed by True the Vote, a Houston, Texas-based non-profit organization focused on “voters’ rights and election integrity” against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The order alleged that the IRS had improperly delayed granting their application for 501(c)(3) status and targeted them as a conservative organization. The opinion, by Judge Reggie B. Walton, found that the IRS had taken sufficient “remedial steps to address the alleged behavior.”
From the ruling by Judge Walton, analysis:
“The defendants contend that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over counts one, two, and five of the plaintiff’s complaint because the IRS ultimately approved the plaintiff’s application for tax-exempt status, and thus counts one, two, and five—all of which seek “to correct [the] alleged targeting [of the IRS] and delay during its application process” for tax-exempt status—are now moot as there is no longer any case or controversy for the Court to resolve.”
How nice that the IRS can slip out of a sticky wicket by simply retroactively approving a 501(c)(3) application that they officiated with a touch of harassment and a sprinkle of intimidation. The reasoning used by Judge Walton to protect the IRS from a “voluntary cessation” exception follows:
“The rationale supporting the defendant’s voluntary cessation as an exception to mootness is that, while the defendant’s unilateral cessation of the challenged conduct may grant the plaintiff relief, the defendant is free to return to its old ways—thereby subjecting the plaintiff to the same harm but, at the same time, avoiding judicial review. Accordingly, a case can be mooted by virtue of the defendant’s cessation of its allegedly illegal conduct only if (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the conduct will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.”
Oh praise the sacred high priests of the Internal Revenue Service for “seeing the light” and repenting their ways. Such a reasonable trust in the good intentions of the IRS to not only follow the law but to administer their trade under the “good faith” doctrine that only a judge working for the same corrupt government as do the Lois Lerner brigade of bureaucrats, would profess.
An important USA Today article, from hardly an anti government publication, IRS list reveals concerns over Tea Party ‘propaganda’, furnishes the evidence.
“Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about “anti-Obama rhetoric,” inflammatory language and “emotional” statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.
The internal 2011 documents, obtained by USA TODAY, list 162 groups by name, with comments by Internal Revenue Service lawyers in Washington raising issues about their political, lobbying and advocacy activities. In 21 cases, those activities were characterized as “propaganda.”
The list provides the most specific public accounting to date of which groups were targeted for extra scrutiny and why. The IRS has not publicly identified the groups, repeatedly citing a provision of the tax code prohibiting it from releasing tax return information.”
The supporting items Document: IRS ‘political advocacy cases’ list, while the pattern of selective favoritism is authenticated in the report, IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo.
For a more cutting edge analysis from Twitchy US politics on the insanity from the Loony Left, just absorb the rhetoric and ask, who the real totalitarians are in society and even worse in government. Outrage: Court acknowledges that IRS targeted True the Vote, dismisses lawsuit anyway explains.
“Voters’ rights group True the Vote , a nonprofit “founded to inspire and equip voters for involvement at every stage of our electoral process,” has had a hard time of it. As the 2012 election approached, Cher of all people referred to True the Vote as “a bunch of Tea Party Nazis” and “animals.” Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, who sits on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, informed True the Vote founder and president Catherine Engelbrecht that he would be launching an investigation into her organization.
Of course, all of this was happening while the IRS was targeting conservative groups and holding up applications for nonprofit status, often through several election cycles. And even though the U.S. Federal District Court didn’t deny this, True the Vote’s case against the IRS was dismissed today.”
Engelbrecht issued the following brief statement:
“The Court today correctly acknowledged that the IRS targeted True the Vote because of its perceived political beliefs. Such conduct is reprehensible and should never be acceptable in a free society. Despite this critical finding, we are stunned and disappointed in the court’s ruling which nevertheless dismisses our case. We will be evaluating our legal options and will announce our intent in that regard soon.”
Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots reaction to the DC Court Decision on IRS “Unconscionable”. “The Court’s decision not to sanction either the IRS or the individual agents because it and they had taken “remedial measures” is unconscionable.”
Supporting this conclusion are Top 9 Quotes on the IRS Targeting of Tea Party Groups.
- “Not even a smidgen of corruption.” – President Barack Obama to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly February, 2014
- “Decline to answer that question.” – Lois Lerner, pleading the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, March 5, 2014
- “The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.” – Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Audit
- “Instead of referring to the cases as advocacy cases, they actually used case names on this list. They [Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Ohio] used names like ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriots’ and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.” – Lois Lerner
- “Even after admitting that it had targeted groups, and a TIGTA [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] report detailed the abuses, the IRS did not let up. In August 2013, the IRS requested yet more documents and information. It asked us to provide, for example, all fundraising communications for the 60 days before the November 6, 2012 election, and all materials that we used in various “Get Out the Vote” activities. That request made no sense under the current standards for evaluating non-profit applications. The regulations proposed three months later, however, explain the requests, as they include specific provisions classifying any mention of a candidate’s name within 60 days of an election and get-out-the-vote efforts as taxable political activity.” – Jenny Beth Martin in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, February 27, 2014
- “The Internal Revenue Service says acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller was first informed in May 2012 that tea party groups were inappropriately targeted for scrutiny.” – Hot Air, May 13, 2013
- “The IRS inspector general said this week that while some liberal groups were given extra scrutiny by the tax agency, they were not subjected to the same invasive queries as tea party groups – a finding that seems to confirm political bias was at play.” – The Washington Times, June 27, 2013
- When the IRS revelations broke, Obama promised a full investigation. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney for a number of tea party and conservative groups targeted by the IRS, testified, “None of my clients have received a single contact from the FBI, the DOJ [Department of Justice] or any other investigator regarding the IRS scandal.” – The Chicago Sun-Times, February 10, 2014
- More than 400,000 documents have been turned over to Congress, only a fraction of which have been publicly released under the Freedom of Information Act. Republicans say they’re still missing key documents including the e-mails of former IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner. – USA Today, February 26, 2014
But remember, President Obama assures us there’s “not a smidgen of corruption!”
No matter your political leanings, every American should be concerned when the courts condone abusive and arbitrary administration in any agency. Allowing the IRS to retroactively cover their rear, while turning a blind eye to systemic illicit practices, is just part of the game plan that permits the court to make up law, which favors government tyranny.
The True the Vote decision is insulting and only goes to prove that reforms through the election process are truly the moot option.
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), was on a conference call this past Monday evening, which was sponsored by TheTeaParty.net and attended by hundreds of Tea Party activists. During the conference call, a Tea Party activist asked him about President Barack Obama’s plans for executive amnesty. Priebus replied, “It’s unconstitutional, illegal, and we don’t support it.”
Breitbart.com covered the story. “‘While I can’t speak for the legislature, I’m very confident we will stop that,’ Priebus said. ‘We will do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen: Defunding, going to court, injunction. You name it. It’s wrong. It’s illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of this country, we can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen. I don’t know how to be any stronger than that. I’m telling you, everything we can do to stop it we will.’”
Breitbart goes on to quote Priebus, “‘I have said repeatedly on immigration that the first thing is border security and the second thing is upholding the law that’s in place today. What ever happened to the border fence that was promised by Congress in 2006? It never happened. What about these sanctuary cities out there that take federal money and they’re not even upholding the law that we have in place? So somehow or another what can’t get lost in any of this conversation is the importance of border security and making sure that any sort of immigration reform talk doesn’t even begin without taking that first step.’”
As Ronald Reagan said to President Jimmy Carter, “There you go again.” There the GOP goes again: making a promise they have absolutely no intention of keeping.
Priebus’ promise that, should the GOP capture the U.S. Senate, they will stop Obama’s executive amnesty is just so much hot air. I guess he thinks that we have all forgotten then Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America.”
During the congressional elections of 1994, Gingrich promised the American people that if they put Republicans in charge of the Congress, they would pass legislation to eliminate five federal departments (Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development), 95 federal domestic programs, and slash federal spending across the board. The GOP promises made during the ’94 elections became known as the “Contract With America.”
GOP promises during that election cycle proved extremely successful. In the House of Representatives there was a 54-seat swing to the Republicans, which gave them a majority of seats for the first time since 1954. In the U.S. Senate there was an eight-seat swing, which allowed the GOP to capture both houses of Congress.
During the succeeding congressional session, many of the elements of the Contract were indeed passed by the Republican-led House of Representatives. It was quite another story in the GOP-led Senate. In the Senate, most of the promised bills were either killed altogether or seriously compromised through a variety of watered-down amendments. A few bills–and I mean a precious few bills–made it somewhat intact out of the Senate. At the end of the session, very little of the Contract survived. In fact, during that time, Republican senators reminded everyone that the Contract With America was only the promise of the GOP House, that the GOP Senate never joined in that promise. (Politicians are the slickest liars in the world, are they not?)
While there were several positive results of that “Republican Revolution” of 1994, including a balanced budget in 1998 and surpluses in the federal budgets from 1999-2001–all of these budgets being proposed by Democratic President Bill Clinton–Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott quickly began to compromise away most of the principles of the 1994 Contract. This led to Gingrich being ousted as Speaker of the House.
Of course, none of the five federal departments targeted were eliminated–neither were any of the 95 targeted federal programs. In fact, not only were these departments and programs not eliminated, funding for all of these departments and programs actually INCREASED under the GOP-led Congress. In 2000, Edward Crane, president of the Cato Institute, noted that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract With America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” And, in case Republicans want to try and blame the Democrat Bill Clinton for these budgetary backslidings, the facts just don’t support it.
Consider the fact that from 2001 through 2006, the GOP controlled the entire federal government: the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate. Plus, Republican-appointed justices comprised a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. (That has been the case since the early 1970s). During those long six years, the GOP-dominated federal government NEVER revisited the principles of the Contract With America. In fact, the Bush years are on record as seeing the most explosive growth in federal spending and overreach in U.S. history to that time. There has been absolutely NOTHING fiscally conservative about the Twenty-First Century GOP. And that’s a fact.
Again, even though the GOP controlled the entire federal government for the first six years of this century, there was no attention given to the promises of the 1994 Contract With America. In addition, no attention was given to overturning Roe v. Wade and ending legalized abortion-on-demand, and no attention was given to overturning Bill Clinton’s egregiously unconstitutional Executive Orders. In fact, no attention was given to G.W. Bush’s campaign promises of fiscal restraint and no-nation building, non-aggressive foreign policy promises, or his vow to honor the Constitution by curbing the usurpations of Washington, D.C., of individual liberties and civil rights. What a joke that turned out to be!
Now we have a Democratic President, Barack Obama, who is one of the most unpopular presidents of our entire history, and the GOP is struggling to energize its own base. How pathetic is that? That’s why RNC Chairman Reince Priebus took to the air with a live conference call with Tea Party activists. The national GOP has so alienated Tea Party conservatives that it is concerned that even with a despised Democrat President, disenfranchised conservatives within the GOP could stay home in large numbers next Tuesday.
Priebus’ concern is warranted.
So, Priebus makes a Contract With America-type promise: give us the Senate and we will stop Obama’s executive amnesty. And even though it was a conference call, I assume he said it with a straight face. The problem is, it is a lie, and Priebus knows it.
Obama is going to sign his executive amnesty order soon after the elections and before the Senate convenes next year. And there are about as many Republicans in the Senate that favor amnesty as there are Democrats. Does anyone really think that John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, et al. are going to get exercised over amnesty? The Chamber of Commerce establishment Republicans are salivating over amnesty for illegals. Some of them are trying to hide an amnesty amendment in the upcoming NDAA even as we speak. Plus, just exactly what is the Senate going to do to overturn an executive amnesty order? I can already hear it. After the GOP wins the Senate, they will say, “Well, as the U.S. Senate, we can’t really do anything; we need a Republican President in 2016. Then we will do something about it.” And the beat goes on.
It’s not about stopping amnesty; it’s about political posturing for a November election. House Speaker John Boehner has promised Big Business Republicans an amnesty deal. Does anyone in their right mind believe the GOP is going to overturn an Obama amnesty order? It’s a campaign bluff. I know it; and so does Barack Obama. (I would love to be proven wrong; but the GOP track record says I am 100% right.)
The Breitbart report goes on to say, “Priebus said at the end of the town hall that he thinks it’s important for Tea Partiers and the grassroots to hold Republicans accountable.
“‘I think it’s important to build our party through addition and make sure that we don’t subtract people out of our party,’ he said. ‘It’s also important for the Tea Party to hold the Republican Party accountable. I get that. It’s not always a cheerleading opportunity. It’s both that we’re going to be with you and help you, but we have to hold you accountable once in a while. And I understand that and respect it.’”
See the report here:
No, Priebus doesn’t understand that; neither does he respect it. This is pure partisan party electioneering.
The GOP leadership has not allowed itself to be held accountable to ANYBODY. They wouldn’t let Ross Perot do it; they wouldn’t let Pat Buchanan do it; they wouldn’t let Ron Paul do it; and they aren’t letting the Tea Party Republicans do it. They think themselves above their own platform, above their conservative base, and even above the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, they have been subtracting numbers from their own ranks for a long, long time. Where do you think the Libertarian and Constitution parties came from? Where do you think so many of the registered independent voters came from?
In any given national election the numbers of people who stay home and don’t vote always outnumber the ones who do vote. Why is that? It’s because both the Democrat and Republican parties have been ignoring so much of their grassroots base that people from both parties have been drifting away by the millions. People by the millions have given up on both major parties. Neither party in Washington, D.C., respects the people of the United States or the U.S. Constitution. Both parties grovel before Big Money. That’s why so many people have removed themselves from the two major parties.
If the Republican leadership in Washington, D.C., had been listening to its base over the past several years, Barack Obama would not be President today and the GOP would not be biting its fingernails as to whether they can take back the Senate. This should be a slam-dunk election for the GOP. And, despite the stiff-necked, Big Business, Big Brother leadership of the national Republican Party, I think the GOP will take the Senate. But if you think for one minute that a GOP-led Senate and House will do diddly squat to stop Obama’s amnesty order or to close our Southern Border, there is this bridge in the Mojave Desert you need to look at. The GOP is famous for doing NOTHING after elections are won.
Reince Priebus lamented over the failure of Congress to honor its promise to close the Southern Border back in 2006. Well, Mr. Priebus, it was the Republican Party that controlled the federal government from 2001-2006, and despite their promises to close the Southern Border, did NOTHING to actually do it. And you think a GOP-led Congress is going to do something about it now? What a joke! Most of the anti-amnesty Republicans are in the House, and they are not even a majority within their own caucus there. Try to name the anti-amnesty senators. The only ones I can recall who have been outspoken against amnesty are Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. Even Rand Paul has softened on the subject.
I wasn’t on the Tea Party conference call last Monday evening with Mr. Priebus when he said what he said, but I’m hoping someone on the call hollered, “There you go again.”
When I started my radio talk show back in 1994–and for the next six years hosting the show–I was considered a hero by conservatives everywhere. Between my leadership position with the Moral Majority back in the 1980s and my radio talk show in the 1990s, I walked shoulder-to-shoulder with practically every notable conservative leader, including Christian leaders, one could think of. I traveled the country speaking with, and for, the most visible conservative leaders in America. I became friends with a host of U.S. congressmen and senators, not to mention several State governors. I even sat at the “king’s table” with President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush. I was one of the “darlings” of conservatism. Just about anybody who was anybody was a guest on my show.
I only mention all of that so readers can understand my background–along with the “rest of the story” that brought me to where I am today.
Back in those days, I fell right in lock-step with the left-right paradigm: Republicans were good; Democrats were bad. And even if the Republican was downright bad, he wasn’t as bad as the Democrat. That doctrine was sacrosanct and unassailable. And I believed that malarkey as much as anyone.
I started smelling a rat in 1996 when the GOP anointed Bob Dole as the next “conservative” Republican who was going to lead us to the Promised Land. I knew Dole well enough: he was anything but a conservative. In fact, he joined the likes of Richard Nixon and now John Boehner who say that they have never read the Republican Party platform. Boehner has gone so far as to say that he doesn’t know anybody who has read it. He probably told the truth there. The vast majority of Republican leaders in Washington, D.C., have not read it, don’t care what it says, and give no heed to it. I knew in my heart that Bob Dole would be a horrible President, and that he would NOT give a hoot in hades about obeying the Constitution. Plus, I had developed a great respect for and friendship with Pat Buchanan, who was an ardent conservative constitutionalist. So, I was supporting Pat’s presidential candidacy.
There is so much I would love to tell you about the rest of that primary, but let me fast forward to the end of the season. Toward the end of that 1996 GOP primary season, the congressman that my radio talk show was largely responsible for helping get elected, Joe Scarborough, came to me and pleaded, saying, “Chuck, I’m the only Republican congressman to not have already endorsed Dole. I’ve held out for as long as I can. Pat can’t win the nomination. It’s over. Dole will be the candidate. We have to rally behind Dole in order to beat Bill Clinton. You have to help me.”
I caved. For the sake of “party unity” and “defeating Bill Clinton,” I totally capitulated. Remember the sacred doctrine: Republicans are always good guys, and Democrats are always bad guys. And if even if the Republican is a bad guy he is not as bad as the Democrat.
So, there I was, standing next to Senator Bob Dole and Congressman Joe Scarborough at a press conference at the General Aviation office at the Pensacola, Florida, regional airport publicly endorsing the Republican Bob Dole for President of the United States. Albeit, I was still wearing my Pat Buchanan lapel pin. My defiance wasn’t dead, only crippled.
As I walked to my car after the press conference, I felt sick. I mean, totally and thoroughly sick. I had betrayed my convictions and my conscience, and I knew it. I vowed then and there that I would never again support a candidate—any candidate, no matter what his or her party label–for any public office that I did not believe in my heart would at least be faithful to the essential principles of liberty upon which our country was built.
For the next four years I marched forward with my radio talk show extolling the principles of liberty as loudly as I knew how. Mind you, the bitter taste of my compromise stayed in my mouth. It never went away. Still hasn’t. In addition, the next four years afforded me great opportunity to awaken to a host of truths, including the truth that both major parties in Washington, D.C., were actually not all that different. I came to realize that what Pat Buchanan had said was really true: “There are not two political parties in Washington, D.C., just two wings of the same bird of prey.”
One of the highlights of that awakening came when I interviewed David Schippers, who was the lead counsel for the House Judiciary Committee in the Bill Clinton impeachment hearings. He told me that as he pleaded with Republican leaders in the Senate (Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, etc.) to look at the evidence that his legal team had gathered, one of the “good guy” Republican senators said, “David, we don’t care if you have a video tape of the President raping a woman, then standing up and shooting her dead, we are not going to vote to remove this President from office.”
Schippers, a lifelong Democrat, was absolutely stunned. You can imagine. Schippers was a tough, no-nonsense, right-is-right, law-and-order kind of guy. He was the guy who took on the Chicago mafia–and won. He was an honest Democrat who was willing to unveil the criminality of a corrupt Democrat. Now he was watching a group of Republican senators in Washington, D.C., make the mafia look like good guys.
Schippers wrote a book of the whole sordid ordeal called, “Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.” It was published by Regnery Publishing. If you’ve never read it, you should do so immediately. The real story will shock you. And you will discover that, no, the Republicans are NOT always good guys–or even the “lesser of two evils.”
Enter the 2000 presidential elections. By now, my eyes were much wider open than they had been four years ago. But when G.W. Bush first ran for President, he said all of the right things. He said he was pro-life, pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, pro-less government, pro-Bill of Rights, etc. So in 2000, I supported G.W.
I’m still doing my radio talk show (and by now I was writing this column); I’m still a conservative hero; I’m still basking in the “success” of being a conservative Republican “darling.”
But that’s when the fun started! It didn’t take very long to realize that G.W. Bush was as phony as a three dollar bill. He was no “conservative.” He was not pro-liberty, pro-Bill of Rights or anything of the kind. G.W. Bush was Bill Clinton on steroids! Bill Clinton tried to pass what became known as the USA Patriot Act, but couldn’t get it done. Bush passed it with ease. He signed the Military Commissions Act into law; he gave America an unconstitutional national police force known as the Department of Homeland Security. Bill Clinton never attempted and could never have accomplished such things. G.W. Bush introduced the “preemptive war” doctrine to America. He invaded nations that had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11. He signed a law authorizing U.S. federal agents–or even military troops–to seize American citizens on U.S. soil and incarcerate them indefinitely without a subpoena or court order of any kind, without habeas corpus, without legal counsel, or any other requirement of justice guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. In truth, everything that Barack Obama is using today to abuse the power of the presidency, he borrowed from G.W. Bush.
So, by 2002 and 2003, and with the bitter taste of Bob Dole still gagging me, I made a decision: I will no longer protect and support Republicans for the sake of “party unity” or for the sake of “he’s not as bad as the Democrat.” No! In truth, it dawned on me that many times Republicans were WORSE than Democrats. From now on I was going to be faithful to my convictions and to the truth as I understood it.
Many of these “pragmatic political scientists” view politics as nothing more than mathematical formulas, test tube experiments, and lab rats. They will support and endorse any formula, no matter how evil the immediate process might be, in order to obtain their supposed “greater good” objective. They recognize absolutely nothing moral or immoral as it relates to politics. It is just “science.” Nothing is right; nothing is wrong; it’s all about putting in the right formulas in order to obtain some lofty, utopian, long-term objective.
In theological terms, the above is called “moral relativism.” In philosophical terms, it is called, “the end justifies the means.” In military terms, it is called, “might makes right.” In business terms, it is called, “what’s good for General Motors is good for America.” And it’s all a bunch of horse manure!
Republican shills will accept practically any evil committed by Republicans under the rubric of the “lesser of two evils” mantra. Democrat apologists will do the same for their fellow Democrats. In truth, party loyalists from both the Republican and Democrat parties in Washington, D.C., are giving America the royal SHAFT.
Our first and greatest president, George Washington, tried to warn us about this danger in his masterful “Farewell Address.” Washington said that the “spirit of party” (meaning, the preoccupation with, and loyalty to, political parties) was our “worst enemy.” He said it was “sharpened by the spirit of revenge,” and that it “perpetuated the most horrid enormities.” He said that the “spirit of party” led to “a more formal and permanent despotism.” He said the leaders of political parties would be elevated “on the ruins of public liberty.” He said it is “the interest and duty of wise people to discourage and restrain it.”
Washington went on to say that the “spirit of party” “agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms.” He said it “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption.” He said the “force of public opinion” must always “mitigate and assuage it.” Then, Washington ended this section of the address saying, “A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”
Every warning George Washington gave us concerning the “spirit of party” has come true in modern America. Party hacks place more loyalty to doing what is good for their party than doing what is good for their country. In many respects, their preoccupation with party partisanship has become their own worst enemy, just as Washington warned. These party shills constantly demonstrate the “spirit of revenge.” In the name of fighting FUTURE despotism, party hacks constantly surrender to an IMMEDIATE and “more formal and permanent despotism.” Party members are “elevated [elected] on the ruins of public liberty.” Party shills are constantly agitating “the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms [especially about how bad the other party’s candidate is].” Party shills stand back and say nothing when their party opens the door to “foreign influence and corruption.” Again, to them, party is more important than country.
The fascination with “political science” demonstrated by party hacks reveals a complete lack of moral conscience. Remember, to party hacks, nothing is right or wrong, only better or worse. Their mantra is, “Our party is better; their party is worse.” And virtually every moral and constitutional malfeasance committed by the favored party member is justified under this mantra.
Thus, Bill Clinton’s repeated perjuries could take the Office of The President of The United States to the brink of disgrace and ruin and, yet, he could still be thought a hero by Democrats. And G.W. Bush’s unconstitutional wars and assaults against the Bill of Rights could take the American people to the brink of totalitarian government and, yet, he could still be thought a hero by Republicans.
Needless to say, when I started telling the truth about G.W. Bush on my radio talk show (just as I had done when Clinton was in office), the “darling” luster quickly vanished. Suddenly, where I was once a hero, now I was a villain. Where I was once a man with great conviction and honor, now I was considered extremist–or even evil. But I was standing for the exact same principles and ideals I had always stood for. But because I was no longer loyal to the “spirit of party,” I became a political outcast. George Washington was exactly right!
As most readers know, I went on to run for President of the United States after Ron Paul was defeated in the Republican primaries in 2008. There was no way in hades I was going to pull another Bob Dole poison pill out of the GOP Big Pharma pill box and vote for the Neocon John McCain. So, when hundreds of Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul conservatives asked me to help keep the voice of constitutional government alive in the 2008 presidential campaign by seeking the presidential nomination of the Constitution Party, I did just that. And as far as I know, I am the only candidate for President that Ron Paul publicly endorsed since Ronald Reagan.
And, no, I didn’t vote for the Neocon Mitt Romney in 2012. And I won’t vote for any Neocon candidate in 2014. And should the GOP nominate another Neocon for President in 2016, I won’t vote for him either.
The liberties of the American people protected in the Bill of Rights are not test tube rats to be scientifically dissected and analyzed by party hacks, who love to call themselves political scientists. Our liberties and freedoms are not subject to the pragmatic “lesser evil” agendas of party shills–be they Democrats or Republicans.
We have been trading Democrats for Republicans and vice versa for as long as any of us can remember. And where has it gotten us? I realize that compromise is necessary in many aspects of politics–but NOT when it comes to the fundamental tenets of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Compromise of those fundamental tenets is not compromise at all; it is appeasement and the worst kind of surrender. And to support those who commit such crimes in the name of party partisanship is the worst kind of patriotism.
Here is the problem. The political scientists and hacks among us do NOT recognize in any way, shape, manner or form, the SPIRITUAL warfare that we face. They do not recognize the spirit of darkness that governs in high places. They cannot recognize nor comprehend that the Evil One can just as easily accomplish his devilish purposes through a Republican office-holder as he can through a Democrat office-holder. Even many professing Christians seem to suffer from this myopia. It seems lost to them that there could be very powerful people who are masters at manipulating “conservative Republicans” and “liberal Democrats” alike for their own wicked and evil purposes. Well, there are; and they do. To single out one party as inherently “worse” and another party as inheritably “better” is the height of naiveté.
In fact, in many ways an “in the dark” Republican is MORE DANGEROUS than an “in the dark” Democrat, because the Republican is operating under the ruse of “light.” An enemy who wears the uniform of a friend is more dangerous than an enemy who wears the uniform of an enemy. That’s why G.W. Bush got away with a whole lot more than Bill Clinton did. And that’s why Mitt Romney would have gotten away with a whole lot more than Barack Obama has. And that’s why your local Neocon Republican congressional or senatorial candidate will get away with a whole lot more than your local Democrat candidate.
I made my decision as I walked away from a press conference with Bob Dole back in 1996. Somehow, in that short walk from the press room to my car, I came to agree with George Washington; and I traded the “spirit of party” for the “Spirit of ’76.” And I’ve never looked back.
“…that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”
– James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America (1931)
The American Dream has been defined many ways by writers of both poetic and prosaic bent, but its essentials tend to involve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property, depending on your source).
The Declaration of Independence, upon which an entire nation was radically brought into existence, asserts that not only are all men created equal but that this is a “self-evident” truth. By this “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,” a contract was agreed to, that their union would be founded on this principle. Thus, America was endowed with its dream at the moment of its conception: the freedom to succeed.
The United States has promoted a self-congratulating exceptionalism for decades, waving its Declaration and Constitution in the faces of other sovereign nations as if the latter had never considered such concepts. Our capital F “Freedom” sets us apart from the rest of the world, as the political rhetoric has repeated ad nauseam, no matter the freedoms enjoyed by democracies on almost every continent. And yet our basic freedom, the freedom to succeed, America’s contractual promise, has been shrinking for thirty years.
The freedom to succeed transcends economic systems but it is most potently expressed by capitalist gains. The ability to go “from rags to riches” is ingrained in this nation’s ethos and there is nothing intrinsically immoral about that goal. However, the current state of American inequality reveals a very real and expanding gap between the rich and poor that betrays the foundational endowment of this Union. When the freedom to succeed is denied every citizen, their equality is equally denied.
Recently, the Pew Research Center released a poll on what international citizens consider the greatest threat to the planet. Conducted between March 17 and June 5 of this year, the survey received answers from 48,643 respondents in 44 countries. In the U.S. and Europe, the growing gap between the rich and the poor was overwhelmingly considered the greatest danger to world prosperity. Over a quarter of Americans ranked “Inequality” as number one, above Religious & ethnic hatred, Pollution, Nuclear weapons and Infectious diseases.
This is hardly startling news considering that the median net worth of American households fell by 35 percent ($106,591 to $68,839) between 2005 and 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It is, however, disturbing that inequality remains so prevalent five years after the Great Recession.
Capitalism is not the problem. The problem is that we have let inequality advance in this country so gradually that its obviousness is masked by its familiarity. Below, I outline eight facts about inequality in America that every American should know.
1) 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. This ratio has been verified by Politifact and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. To put it into context, last year the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there were over 316 million people living in the United States. That means 400 Americans have more money than over 158 million of their fellow citizens. Their net worth is over$2 trillion, which is approximate to the Gross Domestic Product of Russia.
One explanation for the vast discrepancy in wealth is the definition of “worth,” which includes everything a person or household owns. This means savings and property but also mortgages, bills and debt. Poorer households can owe so much in debt that they possess a negative net worth.
2) America has the second-highest level of income inequality, after Chile. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development studies thirty-four developed countries and ranks them both before and after taxes and government transfers take effect (government transfers include Social Security, income tax credit and unemployment insurance). Before taxes and government transfers, America ranks tenth in income inequality. After taxes and transfers, it ranks second. Whereas its developed peers reduce inequality through government programs, the United States’ government exacerbates it.
3) The current state of inequality can be traced back to 1979. After the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the gap between the rich and the poor began to narrow. For fifty years, wages differed between the upper- and working-classes, but a robust middle-class took shape and there remained ample opportunity for working-class individuals to ascend.
In his book, “The Great Divergence,” journalist Timothy Noah traced today’s inequality to the beginning of the 1980s and the widening gap between the middle- and upper-classes. This gap was influenced by the following factors: the failure of American schools to prepare students for new technology; poor immigration policies that favor unskilled workers and drive down the price of already low-income labor; federally-mandated minimum wage that has failed to keep pace with inflation; and the decline of labor unions.
4) Non-union wages are also affected by the decline of unions. The Economic Policy Institute claims that 20 percent of the growth in the wage gap between high-school-educated and college-educated men can be attributed to deunionization.
Between 1978 and 2011, union representation for blue-collar and high-school educated workers declined by more than half. This has also diminished the “union wage effect,” whereby the existence of unions (more than 40 percent of blue-collar workers were union members in 1978) was enough to boost wages in non-union jobs – in high school graduates by as much as 8.2 percent. Not only did unions protect lower- and middle-class workers from unfair wages, they also established norms and practices that were then adopted by non-union employers. Two prime examples are employee pensions and healthcare.
Today, about 13 percent of workers belong to unions, which has reduced their bargaining power and influence.
5) There is less opportunity for intergenerational mobility. In December 2011, President Obama spoke at Osawatomie High School in Kansas. He was very clear about the prospects of the poor in today’s United States:
“[O]ver the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class – 33 percent.”
As refreshing as that honesty is, Obama promised no fix beyond $1 trillion in spending cuts and a need to work toward an “innovation economy.”
In a speech one month later, Obama’s Chairman of Economic Advisers, Alan Krueger, elaborated on the dire state of America’s shrinking middle-class. The contraction, he stated, could partially be attributed to “skill-biased technical change”: work activities that have become automated over time, reducing the need for unskilled labor and favoring those with analytical training. He also highlighted the 50 year decline in tax rates for the top 0.1 percent, increased competition from overseas workers, and a lack of educational equality for children. Poor children are denied the private tutors, college prep and business network of family and friends available to their wealthier peers, which locks them into the class they are born into.
6) Tax cuts to the wealthiest have not improved the economy or created more jobs. Krueger also revealed that the tax cuts of the 2000s for top earners did not improve the economy any better than they did in the 1990s (meanwhile, income growth was stronger for lower- and middle-class families in the 1990s than in the last forty years).
Tax rates for the top income earners in America peaked in 1945 at 66.4 percent. Following decades of gradual reductions, they have since been cut in half. During the same time, the payroll tax has increased since the 1950s and individual income tax has bounced between 40-50 percent through the present day. Conversely, corporate tax declined from above 30 percent in the 1950s to under 10 percent in 2011.
All of these tax cuts are made ostensibly to improve the economy and create jobs. However, the National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that it is young companies, “regardless of their size,” that are the real job creators in America. Tax cuts to the wealthiest do not create jobs.
7) Incomes for the top 1% have increased (but the top 0.01% make even more). Between 1979 and 2007, the average incomes of the 1 percent increased 241 percent. Compare that to 19 percent growth for the middle fifth of America and 11 percent for the bottom fifth. Put another way, in 1980 the average American CEO earned forty-two times as much as his average worker. In 2001, he earned 531 times as much.
Average income across the 1 percent is actually stratified into widely disparate echelons. Compare the $29,840 average income for the bottom 90 percent to the $161,139 of the top 10 percent. Compare the $1 million average income of the top 1 percent to the $2.8 million of the top 0.1 percent. Yet both still pale beside the $23 million average income of the top 0.01 percent.
If those numbers seem a bit overwhelming, Politizane has created a video that illustrates this staggering inequality:
8) The majority of Congress does not feel your pain. Empowered by the Constitution to represent their constituents, United States Congress members are, for the first time in history, mostly millionaires. The 2012 financial disclosure information of the 534 current Congress men and women reveals that over half of them have a net worth of $1 million or more.
After the past seven facts it is difficult to read this last one and believe that these 268 legislators have the best interests of the remaining 99 percent at heart. But if that is too presumptuous a leap, it is not too bold to say that wealthier donors, lobbyists and special interest groups enjoy greater access to these lawmakers than the average American.
In January, Congress failed to extend emergency benefits for unemployment, leaving 1.3 million people without federal aid. Congress then went on a weeklong recess that kept them from debating the issue until the end of the month. The bill was too divisive for Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement on, though unemployment was then above 7 percent nationally.
Thankfully, the unemployed have their Congress working for them. And at $174,000 annual pay, those representatives are sure to return from their vacations committed to fresh solutions.
The Comité De Salut Public during the French Revolution exhibited a pattern for nightmares far removed from their stated purpose as a Committee of Public Safety. The reign of terror that arose from the shambles created by the Society of the Jacobins, based upon extreme egalitarianism, actually produced a most violent outcome. If you are one of those lost souls who cling to the latest narrative from the designer media reporting machine, the fear factor is working overtime. What can be more impartial than the threat of succumbing to an Ebola epidemic? Well, if you believe this hysteria, maybe the imminent acts of terror from those Islamic fascists; now called ISIS, will get your blood pressure to spike. Both share a paranoia manufactured in the labs of mind control more than in the actuary records of fact.
Worry that a global pandemic is in the making causes more psychosis than any screenplay coming out of tinsel town. Ebola has much in common with “The stuff that dreams are made of” for the social engineers and population control psychopaths. While human life is lost to this virus, when did this planet ever value the existence of individual human beings?
One viewpoint purports that The 5 Biggest Lies About Ebola Being Pushed by Government & Mass Media are inhibiting a proper response.
Lie #1) Ebola won’t ever come to the United States
Well, that one has been disproved.
Lie #2) Ebola is only spread via direct contact with body fluids
Nice to ignore those aerosols – airborne particles
Lie #3) Don’t worry: Health authorities have everything under control
Now who in their right mind is going to believe this nonsense?
Lie #4) The only defense against Ebola is a vaccine or a pharmaceutical drug
This one starts to shed light on some of the motivation behind the response.
Lie #5) Ebola came out of nowhere and was a random fluke of nature
The big lie theory always seems to work on the naïve public.
Think outside the box. Pose the question that no one in the mainstream culture dares to ask. Why expend extreme dread about a mutating infection when most of the “so called” civilized world is currently consumed on intentionally taking a road to annihilation. If the Ebola outbreak is the ultimate culling of the herd, the argument of the disinformation artists already won the day.
Wearing down the natural immunized capacity of people to discount and reject the hype and fabricated perception of reality, is far more lethal than the actual threat of a medical disease. Prudence prescribes preparative precautions. However, ignoring the far more dangerous menaces to our well being can truly be terminable.
Survival seems paramount to secular society. Since this is the case, why is so much energy and mental attention devoted to chasing false Armageddons? ISIS is an obvious example of the playing out the same old strategy of creating an enemy in order that the ruling class can come to the rescue. Alas, delivering a solution or victory is intentionally unattainable.
Senators like Lindsay Graham and John McCain revel in juicing up their NeoCon followers with their fright campaign to keep the war machine rumbling along. Their manta is not just old, it is laughable. So many Americans are deluded by the fantasy of fighting a war against terrorism for generations to come, that they are oblivious from learning the history that created this madness.
The New York Times publishes an article, For Many Iranians, the ‘Evidence’ Is Clear: ISIS Is an American Invention. Oh dear, who could believe any observation from that axis of evil regime?
“Ayatollah Khamenei reminded them that Al Qaeda — a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency, Iran has said — and the Taliban were, in the eyes of Iranian intelligence, devised by the West as a counterweight to Iran.”
When Iranian television aired images of Senator John McCain, the hawkish Arizona Republican, at a meeting with the current caliph of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an announcer added.
“These say more than a thousand words regarding the links between the United States and this group.”
So when Iranians express their distrust, the full thrust of the NWO establishment condemns their conclusions.
“But the claim that ISIS is a creation of the Obama administration has gained wide traction here. From the Iranian viewpoint, shaped by their spotty exposure to Western culture, analysts say, creating a terrorist organization opposed to Iranian interests is the obvious thing for a superpower to do.”
Exactly what is the advantage of being under the spell of exposure to Western culture, when the flagship of approved news reporting refuses to admit that interventionism into the Middle East has been a total disaster for ordinary Americans?
That old JFK trademark, “in the final analysis” the betrayal of real national security has become the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy.
Wasting time on all the breaking news about the latest development on ISIS is pure folly. The absurd assertions that ISIS is about to initiate attacks on domestic soil, only serves to alarm an already high-anxiety induced citizenry.
Both Ebola and ISIS alleged scourges could be precluded with very basic border control measures. Common sense is a prime casualty in preventive national protection. Yet, the Homeland Security culture asserts the same delusional rhetoric as the Committee of Public Safety exhibited as the bloodbath of the French Revolution flowed into the streets of Paris.
The difference in this age of instant communication and immediate gratification is that the speed and scope of scares spread instantaneously. Where is the prioritization of risk? What will it take to focus on true distress targets of momentous calamities, which are consistently ignored in our brainwashed culture?
When was the last time you read or heard a significant report of the ongoing Fukushima contamination from the radiation meltdown? Or has that little catastrophe been wiped from the consciousness of the collective mind? All these questions become taxing. People are not used to thinking beyond the sound bites from yesterday.
Energy News provides the following: US gov’t analysis says Fukushima is more serious than ‘China Syndrome’ — Destroyed reactors suffered worst type of containment failure. Review the best resources on this topic from Rense.com links. Nonetheless, most would reply that an Ebola epidemic is an immediate health hazard, while radiation migration will only cause cancer deaths over time.
Gee, another acquiescence that open borders are inevitable – the prevailing wind and currents know no national boundary. Well, to the simple mind, that must mean the same is true for blocking air flights from West African contaminated zones or for CIA trained jihad Islamists.
Government boasts that their mission to protect the public takes precedent over civil liberties or constitutional law. Just how well are these Jacobin thugs doing in keeping you safe?
Listing all the steps that have practical probability for success to eliminate the Ebola and ISIS dilemmas are futile to debate as long as the intended purpose of the careerist political class and globalist financial elite is to implement their reign of terror.
That infamous New World Order icon Franklin D. Roosevelt’s First Inaugural Address quote: “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”, actually should read “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Government Itself”. The Bull S#$& that constitutes the 24/7 news cycle which expounds and rationalizes government policy and the police state is the true plague.
In order to establish a “Free Zone” from all the Ebola and ISIS propaganda, folks need to escape the BS and engage the real world by dropping out from the controlled grid of establishment lunacy.
Most of the literal risks that people are susceptible to encounter are avoidable with behavioral modifications. While life itself is the supreme adventure, avoiding perilous circumstances should be a component of sensible conduct. Regrettably, government rejects this standard and most of the time is devoted to create the circumstance that endangers their citizens.
Treacherous planning for martial law imposition thrives on the outbreak of Ebola hysteria. The frenzy amplifies calls for cures. Healing by quarantine is not a medical remedy, it is a reactionary response. What an ideal environment to foster even greater control. Keep illness intact, while reducing free association among the healthy.
ISIS may want to spread this deadly version of wellness destruction when they capture their next stash of armament weapons. Keeping the threat alive is much more important than merely killing non-combatants. A free zone of analysis accepts the Iranian interruption over the MSM version. The same analytic thinking leads to the inference that a mass phobia stampede leads to the desired public demand for government salvation.
Tune out this effort to herd the sheeple to slaughter. Start protecting yourself and prepare for your own safety. The hazmat response team will not rescue you from a system based upon deception, fraud and disinformation. Then what is the difference, the Fukushima contagion illustrates that the cockroaches will inherent the planet. Maybe they will do better than this mentally ill society.
Their Law Against His Law…
Much of the thought about the roles of Church and State assumes that those who reject God function in a religious void.
What if a religious void does not exist? What if every human being centers faith in something making everyone religious? What if the distinction isn’t to believe in God or not to believe in God but which god? What if when a government refuses to submit to the Creator of the Universe it simple takes His place and becomes the de facto deity?
If the Creator of the Universe is sovereign He controls His creation; He makes the laws, selects His servants, and determines right and wrong!
When the government makes the laws, selects its servants and determines right and wrong is it not functioning as a deity? Might the same be said of an individual? When law is determined by human beings are they then not functioning as gods?
What if when we reject the Creator and His Law we are not rejecting religion but only changing to another deity?
Most Christian religions consider the Bible to be God’s Word but they reserve the right to select what parts they believe and what parts they reject. Few read God’s Word as a legal document that sets forth the Will of God on every page. Few actually believe that God created the world and everything in it in seven days and that He is sovereign and in charge of His creation; that Christians are a chosen people, selected just as God selected His servants throughout the Bible.
What if the dominate religion in the United States is humanism – where the creature rather than the creator makes the laws and determines right and wrong both individually and as an elected government official?
There will be no change in the direction of government until there is a change in the moral standards of our society. Immoral people require tyrannical government. Policemen become brutal and oppressive when society is disobedient and rebellious. Government becomes tyrannical because it is not tied down by an immutable legal standard.
An immoral populace votes for lying representatives and lying representatives depend on an immoral populace.
We are living in a nation that is ostensibly governed by a document created by the hands and minds of men with no reference to the Will or Law of an Overarching Deity. Freedom of religion is encoded within its pages and provisions for taxing citizens.
The unrestrained ability to tax puts the ability to destroy in the hands of an agency that has always used its power.
Freedom of religion means that all religions are welcome; including Islam. Islam, however, is not the major problem. The major problem is the religion of humanism where the godhead is centered in the minds of men and the majority of the world is populated by human gods who are in constant conflict.
When the Constitution attempted to create a neutral government by banning the promotion of religion they set up a humanistic government restrained by what President George W. Bush described as a g— d—– piece of paper.
Fallen humanity is not able to govern itself. Peace and prosperity will never become reality until the American people understand that they and the government they create must be bound by God’s Law.
All of the players who seek the throne of the United States of America are power seekers. All will use the power to coerce. History overflows with humanistic power centers that have enslaved, tortured, and murdered their subjects. Revolutions are fomented by individuals who believe they have the proper solution. They will coerce. All proffer opinions are latent coercers.
Tyrants come from both secular and religious perspectives. The intent to promote religion can become tyrannical as easily as the intent to ensure secularism. It is the accumulation of unrestrained power in the hands of self-righteous humans that is dangerous.
When power is sought by the state the productivity of the society is sacrificed. In the quest to garner and maintain power the productivity of society is lost. Coerced citizens make slovenly workers.
When both the state and the citizens are restrained by God’s Law the freedom that results allows society to produce abundance. Power is willingly granted to the Righteous God and His unchanging legal standards govern His creation. That is the road to peace and prosperity; the only road!
R. J. Rushdoony writes, “The state can never rise above its moral level. If it rules by man-made law, promotes abortion, homosexuality, and humanism, the level it seeks will be steadily lower unless Christians reverse the trend.”
It is not surprising that we have legalized abortion and homosexuality. Our society is a fiat society; we have a fiat currency, we have fiat law, we have fiat representatives, and a fiat President. Nothing is set on a sound, immutable foundation. Our currency is controlled by the avarice of human power, our laws are set by pagan lawyers using faulty human reasoning, our elected officials act in their own private interests instead of those of their constituents, and our President failing to protect the people instead enhances the interests of the power brokers. It is total confusion!
A Republican landslide will not solve our problem; it will only bring us more of the same – government interference in our private lives, government coercion of Christians, perpetual war, irrational immigration, world government, and lies upon lies, upon lies.
“Fiat money, — means a constantly changing standard of measurement; the whole economy is thereby falsified and rendered unjust. The same is true of fiat laws, whether in church, state, or any other realm. Fiat or man-made laws simply enact injustice and codify it into the life of a society. Man-made laws are false measures. Fiat money and laws make all of a society’s operations move steadily from justice to injustice. All laws legalizing abortion and homosexuality, thus, represent false measures and injustice.” R. J. Rushdoony
Political solutions are useless, we are involved in a religious war that requires a religious solution; anything else will steepen the slope into confusion and morbidity.
“There was a time when you knew who the bad girls were,” someone close to me once said. “Now you know who the good girls are.”
And I hear that all three of them are beside themselves over today’s state of affairs.
“Lena Dunham: I Was Raped By a ‘Campus Republican,’” the headline reads, introducing the “Girls” star’s story about an alleged sexual assault at the hands of a “mustachioed” conservative undergrad while a student at Ohio’s Oberlin College nearly a decade ago. It’s perhaps a fanciful story, the kind you might expect to read in the National Enquirer or The Sun right after “I Was Impregnated by a Space Alien” and “Loch Ness Monster Found Living in Central Park Lake.” I mean, really, are we supposed to believe this?
That there was a Republican at Oberlin College?
In brief, Dunham says that one day when she was 19 and drunk and high as a kite on Xanax and cocaine, she entered a state of undress to relieve herself in a parking lot right in front her GOP friend. He then, to put it delicately, makes aggressive physical sexual overtures, after which she takes him back to her apartment; at this point, “in an attempt to convince herself that she’d given consent — [she] talks dirty to him as he forces himself on her,” she writes in her newly released memoir, penned at the ripe old age of 27 (of course, she does possess more of a certain kind of experience than any five women three times her age).
Oh, there’s more to the story: when Dunham’s roommate characterized the incident as rape the next day, Dunham laughed. Years later, she pitched a version of the story to her “Girls” collaborators and still didn’t call it rape, though her co-writers would. And now they have her convinced. But, come on, isn’t there something wrong with Dunham’s story?
I mean, I still don’t believe there are Republicans at Oberlin.
Whatever people think about the alleged incident, and whatever the truth is, anything involving Dunham and sex will only enhance her brand and promote her career — as a professional slut.
Yes, that’s what she is. And, yes, I know radio host Rush Limbaugh had mucho problemos because he called Sandra Fluke the s-word. And Limbaugh was wrong to sloppily label her a slut.
Fluke is a professional, too.
Understand what a professional slut is. The designation doesn’t denote anything definitive about nocturnal inter-sheet acrobatics, though professional sluts often do have the practical experience one might expect from someone with their stock-in-trade. Rather, a professional slut is this: “1 a: a woman who uses slutty behavior or the promotion of slut-oriented behavior, ideas or activism to win money, fame, power or influence”1.
- Merriam-Duke-Webster, First Edition.)
No doubt I’m now going to be the bad guy for saying the empress has no clothes. But you tell me: what do you call a young woman who has a penchant for getting naked in front of cameras, promotes decadence and, as the Daily News reported, has had “more failed relationships than Henry VIII” and wrote a memoir in which “[f]ully half of the book is about sex”? If that’s not a slut, what is?
And Fluke? She decided to become the poster girl for free contraception for free sex.
There are many other professional sluts, too. Madonna comes to mind, as does Rihanna, Paz de la Huerta, Margaret Sanger, Rita Ora, Lil Kim, Miley Cyrus, Demi Moore, Kim Kardashian and, well, should I maybe just name the good girls?
The people who take exception to the “slut” label want to retire the word. And I get it. Sluts don’t want to be called sluts any more than thugs want to be called thugs, ambulance chasers want to be called ambulance chasers or liberals want to be called liberals. Heck, given my unfailing humility (of which I’m very proud), I don’t like being called a genius. Yet I tolerate it. But since professional sluts, thugs, and sometimes even liberals make money being what they are, I think we can call them on it.
Of course, sluts never liked being called sluts, but there was a time when they didn’t enjoy the strength numbers bring. Now with the professional slut they can capture a market, get rich, gain influence and have defenders who will visit scorn on those who dare suggest they’re anything but “liberated.” And all these people, taken together, constitute today’s much sought after VD voting bloc.
Just in case you consider this much ado about little, know that it’s actually a matter of all-important truth in labeling. As Chinese sage Confucius wrote 2500 years ago in Analects:
If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be conducted successfully. When affairs cannot be conducted successfully, propriety will not flourish. When propriety does not flourish, punishments will not be properly meted out. When punishments are not properly meted out, the people will not know how to conduct themselves.
Our name for the world’s Lena Dunhams today is not in accordance with the truth of things, and it’s one reason millions of girls do not know how to conduct themselves. Remember that, as a writer once said, stigmas are corollaries of values; if certain things are to be valued, it follows that their opposites will be devalued. I’ll add that proper stigmas are corollaries of “virtues” (which refers to absolutes), and if we’re going to value chastity, modesty and propriety, it follows that sluttishness is going to be devalued — and should be called sluttishness for that reason.
Of course, today’s dominant values are valueless, which is why the Daily News can write something such as this:
Given that Dunham’s story includes therapy when she was in her single digits, ongoing battles with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and more failed relationships than Henry VIII, some readers might be wondering what they can learn from this privileged 28-year-old’s so-called life.
The reality? She’s a walking train wreck created and enabled by a society that’s off the rails.
And here’s the main thing I suspect will be learned from her story: become a professional slut, girls, and perhaps you also can be rich beyond your wildest dreams.
The ongoing failures of the Secret Service to provide proper protection for the President have political careerists in a tizzy. Scares that harm could come to the commander-in-chief, also worries the press. Ordinary citizens on principle, accept that the White House should be secure grounds. Rotating blame usually means that the buck does not stop on the oval office desk. Indeed, who could expect any President to be responsible for their own safety? Surely, policy decisions made as a government could not possibly have any bearing on the lunatics that harbor ill will towards our fearless leaders.
Refreshing your memory, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy got whacked. Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were targets of serious assassination attempts.
With all the Secret Service trial and tribulations experienced in the last years, the popular assessment is that the Praetorian Guard bodyguards have become a dysfunctional band of self-indulgent thrill seekers.
How much money is enough to spend on Presidential security? Some like ousted Secret Service Director Julia Pierson presumably would say a price tag cannot be placed on keeping the leader alive and safe from assassination. Though, Pierson failed to provide fresh start for Secret Service that administration wanted, proves that the culture of political privilege deems their importance to be most costly.
“Homeland Security requested $1.49 billion in operating funds for the Secret Service, a $60 million dip from last fiscal year. But even spending-conscious Republicans said that was too much. So Congress instead agreed to a rare increase over the administration’s request, giving the agency $1.53 billion.”
Such benevolence must come from a motivation to avoid another national tragedy. Absent in budget hearings is a serious debate if the propensity for violently eliminating presidents comes from pragmatic power political expediency as opposed to the usual conclusion that madmen (or women) are acting alone. Well, it is a nice myth if keeping the public living in a dream is the intent. Names like Lawrence, Guiteau, Czolgosz, Fromme and Moore do not carry the same notoriety as icons of assassins like Booth and Oswald, but official accounts paint them all as deranged.
Heads of state are far more cautious and seldom fall into the trap that their greatest danger comes from lone guns. There is good reason for Argentina president claims US plotting to oust her.
“Argentinian opposition politicians have accused the country’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, of being “completely out of touch with reality” after she gave a rambling televised address in which she claimed the US may be behind a plot to overthrow her government and possibly even assassinate her.
“If something should happen to me, don’t look to the Middle East, look to the North,” Fernández said during the address on Tuesday night, in which she alluded to an alleged plot against her by local bankers and businessmen “with foreign help”.
Is Ms. Fernández paranoid or just expressing a healthy appreciation of practices that have long been condoned?
When FDR approved Operation Vengeance, the killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, it was during WWII. The NDAA Actually Gives Obama the Legal Authority to Kill. Just ponder the perversion in the meaning of the term legal. Examples of killing the king in history usually means the victor won the war. Somehow justifying NDAA methods as acceptable demeans every citizen who pledges their allegiance to a constitutional republic.
The New York Times confirms that the Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will, but that begs the theoretical question what authority endows the right to even accept that a kill list is principled, much less a sensible decree of any government? Just where does the moral imperative enter into the craft of statesmanship?
“Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.”
Those American values in the 21th century have little in common from those practiced at the inception of the country. Covert agencies on missions of foreign intrigue are commonly practiced. The use of “special forces” and ex-military contractors seek to enjoy the cover and exoneration that fighting terrorists is the biggest growth industry on the planet. Delineating war loosely without a declared and defined enemy state provides broad discretion to place any antagonist in the crosshairs.
Truth Lies Deception and Cover-ups argues The Presidents Kill List and State Sponsored Assassination is far more dangerous and frequently employed than publically admitted.
“If the “Kill List” nominally exists in the interest of National Security – it is fair to predict that, particularly in a country that estimates it’s own domestic enemies (who are tracked with their surveillance systems) to be in the order of millions – it would be easy to tack journalists or whistle-blowers on to such a list.
This would not be because journalists and whistleblowers present a risk to National Security – but, they present a risk of embarrassing the ruling elite in the government, government agencies, government contractors and the financial giants (or other cronies that lurk in the shadows and pull the strings of politicians and other officials with influence).”
Recall the evidence surrounding the Suspicions Growing Over Death of Journalist Probing NSA and CIA Abuses. The malicious culture that routinely orders foes neutralized by means once considered abhorrent, now defy restraints of civilized society.
“When the Obama administration was exposed spying on journalists earlier this year, the investigative reporter blasted what he referred to as the president’s “war” on journalism. “The Obama administration has clearly declared war on the press. It has declared war on investigative journalists — our sources,” he said during a recent TV interview, blasting the administration’s lawless behavior, obsession with secrecy, and vicious persecution of whistleblowers. Beyond simple criticism, though, Hastings openly said it was time for journalists to fight back.”
Government cover-ups operate as bait and switch sophistry. Exposing corruption once was the pursuit of the art of refined reporting. Now, serious investigative journalism is a threat to any imperial administration.
Revealing and documenting subversion is viewed as endangering the Oval Office. Threats to authoritarian presidents are not limited to high powered rifles. Without regard to life and limb, earning a place on the enemy list is becoming deadly serious.
If the Secret Service has the charge to protect the life of the President, the entire military-intelligence-security complex functions as a hit squad for the institution of the presidency itself. While conflicting factions within the government vie for their own parochial seats of power on a continuous basis the precarious real national security declines. Blowback against the country is evident in every foreign policy arena. Such resentment unsurprisingly places the President in a self-induced greater risk of retaliation.
However, it must be acknowledged that the successful presidential assassinations (and several of those that failed) aimed their fatal bullet at an office holder who defied the ruling cabal that actually controls the financial and economic establishment.
It is difficult to believe that a truly independent and patriotic warrior could ever campaign through the election process and vote count to become President. The enormous entourage that protects the Chief Executive has grown to become its own cottage industry. Lost in the concern for protecting one man is that the White House Continuity of Government Plan makes the elimination of a President merely a lateral move.
Since responsible citizens value the life and safety of legitimate authority, the task of reversing the State sponsored assassination culture is imperative. When your own government conducts their “Murder Inc.” bureau as part of their survival plan, people need to question the degree of loyalty which that same government deserves.
Clint Eastwood’s latest movie production ‘American Sniper’ about Navy SEAL Chris Kyle will hopefully compliment ‘In Line of Fire’ in which he starred as a secret service agent present at the JFK assassination. The other side of the assassination equation is mostly ignored.
Sorrowfully, government officials are locked into a denial mindset that disassociates any relationship and connection between increased levels of risks to officials and the sanctioned killings approved by their governments. Review 82 pages of a list of assassinated heads of state. It is hard to believe that such a record of terminal violence will end any time soon.
Royal guards have an impossible task, no matter how much their budget allows. Until the power structure “gets religion” and renounces their evil ways, the system will never permit a civilized society. Assassination is wrong and adopting such an approach only invites backfire threats. Keeping the President safe begins in implementing moral conduct and renouncing the killer elite mentality.
Thus far this election cycle has been a dud. Hardly a sweat is broken in the rarified air of partisan politics punditry. The only consistent factor that can always be counted upon to amuse is the reams of paper wasted on the false promises and prevarication made by the esteemed party regulars. It is easy to simply blame the entrenched incumbents or the current crop of insurgents, but it goes much deeper when an entire nation remains mute in the face of the worse run and most condemnable conduct, coming out of the District of Criminals in decades. The party in power traditionally will suffer huge losses in Congress, while the gang of “pols” out of power will start contacting real estate agents within the beltway.
What passes for political news today is not even fit to wrap fish. The meat and potatoes of journalism, once upon a time, were made up of scandals. Under the protection racket department of the media government alliance, the abuse of power never reaches the point of national saturation. The Obama administration has outdone the nastiest of offenses under Lyndon Johnson and William Clinton. The Democrats in the Senate allow Harry Reid to be the sickest dictatorial tyrant in living memory.
Customarily, the party with the majority takes the blame for failures. Yet, with each new transgression and unlawful activity, the purported opposition crew of RINOs shirks their constitutional responsibility and shutter out of fear of being labeled a racist. How sad. But that is exactly the condition and lack of courage out of the GOP leadership.
One might think the Democrats just keep digging the hole deeper that they created. Then again, many partisans will look to shift blame and pin shared responsibility on the Republican deadheads in Congress. Forgotten in the fog out of foggy bottom is that Obama owns the failed policies that have been followed after five and a half years in office.
The chaos at the border is intentional. Failure to revive the economy and implement policies that favor job creation is also deliberate. Perpetuating a foreign policy based upon defiance of international law is maintained in the proud tradition of interventionist empire building. Truly this is the institutional synergism, between both parties, that steer career politicians to the dark side. Lastly, the infamous and destructive Obamacare fiasco is the apex of social engineering.
So why won’t the political establishment respond to this laundry list of malfeasance and repeal bad legislation and caustic regulation or change the direction of national policy? It is very difficult for most Americans to accept that the political class is actively working for the downfall of the country and the substitution of a constitutional republic for the dictatorship of permanent privileged elites.
What makes this faction of ruling vermin different from previous ages is that the overriding sentiment for dominance is based upon the systematic dismantling of the nation state. The façade of protecting the homeland is pure hogwash. With the rise of the internationalism culture for governance, the motivation to legislate as if a representative was a sincere patriot has evaporated.
There are not many reasons to even project an appearance of restoring an independent and self-sustaining national economy, a civilization based upon individual liberties and a society where opportunity builds a viable middle class. No, the day that politicians had sincere respect and devotion to institutions of lawful administration and beneficial programs that actually advanced the public interest are long gone.
So why do the hard core political junkies get so exercised over the latest news on how a particular race is turning? With the bipartisan gerrymandering that takes places after each census, every state gets their chance to game the election system. Since there are a small number of elections that can be described as truly competitive, the attention garnished on the few races that could be decided by greater campaign efforts, goes under the microscope.
Back in 2010 the decisive involvement of the genuine grassroots Tea Party captured the House of Representative for the GOP. How did that work out? For traditional conservatives, this freshman class made a substantial attempt to rock the floor of the chamber. Nevertheless, let no good Congressperson go left unpunished. The leadership of the do nothing and gutless Republicans, could not bring themselves to demonstrate fiscal prudence or foreign policy statesmanship.
Sorry folks, the NeoCons are still very much in control.
For this election cycle, the Senate seems to be in play by nearly all accounts. Races for a Senate seat in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina and Kansas are most often talked about holding the keys to the cloakroom. It is incomprehensible that majority leader Senate Harry Reid could muster even the lowest level of respect for the way he has conducted himself in the role of the perfect obstructionist. Yet, Democrat loyalists come to the rescue of his tainted honor, no matter how offensive his behavior and conduct degenerates.
Optimism that Reid will be relegated to the closet motivates discontented votes in the few States that matter. OK, even if the slimy and seedy boss of the Democrat crime syndicate gets demoted, what might be reasonably expected from a Republican majority in the Senate?
Most would expect that the remainder of the Obama Presidency will be dead in the water. Oh, how nice if that would be true. However, be prepared. For what you have already seen from this pathological liar and pretender, who have more in common with Mobutu the African despot, may well foretell an explosive ending.
The nihilism and the mental illness that marks the behavior of this egomaniac gives little reason to think that anything will restrain his one man one rule arrogance. If you watched the blushing admiration that Barry Soetoro showered on the biggest crook that even headed up the Department of Injustice, Eric Holder; you know that this psychotic president flaunts his disgust for America, has more insults left to inflict.
The fact that Republican representatives had no stomach to impeach this madman illustrates the nature of the existential problem that plagues the very foundation of legitimacy and threatens the civil liberties of every honest citizen.
Would a GOP Senate interject backbone into the jelly spines of the legislature branch and commence a revival of in an era of “good government”? Excuse me again, only the dreamers believe that an ethical administration can and will emerge, when morality in its most basic application, is almost nonexistent in the popular culture and the secular society.
Back in the ancient days of the network news monopoly, the three broadcast organizations would sometimes pool their resources to access the same voter count. Tallying ballots always presented the risk of voter fraud. Now, the projection and predicting prognostications are so much more refined. Voter scams are so advanced, using electronic machines to program in the results that only a Boss Tweed could fully appreciate.
Ah, just knowing the time wasted on campaigning is reward enough for those who rate congressional candidates lower than your latest terrorist splinter group. The suspense for the 2014 season better start to build soon or the media moguls will need to invent a different realty show to stage.
Maybe a slight threat of citizen participation could have a remote chance to influence the results in a primary run, but that time has passed. Tuesday, the 4th of November has all the making of another day of shame. Not because there is no qualified champion to support, you already know that to be the case. But for the reason that the likelihood that if a “good” person could be elected, merely means that he or she will be destroyed by the professional caste of political untouchables.
Play ball or your days are numbered. That’s the game and what better chamber exemplifies the experience of blackmail than the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body”.
If some stubborn and obstinate reformer sticks to their guns, just bring in the NSA for the maximum level of authoritarian extortion.
By now you should all be psyched up for making your X. Soon the latest round of illegal invaders will be getting their identity credentials and drive on over to the booth to pick their macho man official. How many more of these futile elections will it take before the pretense of voting will be just as silly as those candidate projected appearances of being a trustworthy representative of the populace?
This year’s Election Day recommendation has not changed. Show up, be vocal, express your disgust, vote third party or make a point that none of the above is your real selection. The charade of a loyal opposition to the party in power has never been so clear for even the densest “true believer” to come to their senses.
Little ever changes for the good and nothing actually reverses the direction towards national suicide. The reason is clear, it is the plan and every system is firing on all cylinders. The rest of the Obama term is poised to have deceased Americans turning in their graves. For those who claim they are still alive, prove it – show your outrage.
If I pointed out that involvement in every major 20th-century conflict the US was part of occurred on liberals’ watch, it might not be entirely fair. True, there was WWI under Wilson, WWII under FDR, Korea under Truman, and Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson. But the second Great War needed to be fought, four conflicts aren’t exactly a scientific sample, and some could contend that these men were, to some extent, victims of timing and circumstance. It also should be said that with modernity’s characteristic flaw of relativism causing ever shifting social visions, yesterday’s liberals aren’t like today’s. As to this, some may mention that it’s a tad tendentious to limit the conflict timeframe to the 20th century, with George W. Bush getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. But like his father, Bush was always a traditional statist, an old-line liberal in the mold of JFK. Moreover, our Middle East adventures weren’t quite like Korea or Vietnam: the wars were won fast. The problem was winning the peace.
But, fair enough, the historical record itself isn’t sufficient to indict liberals as warmongers. No matter, though, because I don’t claim liberals are warmongers. They are ignorance and naïveté mongers.
Avoiding disastrous war is the stuff of foreign policy, and foreign policy involves dealing with other humans; as such, it can only be as good as your understanding of human nature. Thus, just as in the schoolyard or the street, your ability to avoid disastrous international fights will be commensurate with your understanding of human nature. Can you read people — some of whom are potential threats — well? Can you differentiate between a gathering storm that needs to be nipped in the bud and a situation exacerbated by meddling? Do you know what’s your business and what isn’t? Can you strike the balance between projecting the strength that deters aggression and seeming as a threat yourself? Complicating matters is that foreign policy is about dealing with foreign human beings, people sharing your basic nature but not your basic conception of the world.
Given this, it’s clear that a leader can only avoid unnecessary or disastrous war insofar as he grasps man’s nature. And how do liberals measure up in this area?
During the 1990s budget battles, liberals said that with the alleged Republican “budget cuts,” the elderly would have to eat dog food to afford medicine. Spoofing this, radio host Rush Limbaugh said that he purchased a new can opener for his mother “so that she can get the dog food easier when she has to eat it.” The next day, liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder took to the House floor and said, flabbergasted, “[T]his is what it’s come to! …Rush Limbaugh actually said he’s going to buy his mother a can opener so she can have dog food. Wow!”
Yeah, wow. Schroeder took seriously the most obvious of jokes. Talk about an inability to read people. Talk about a foreign human being.
Exhibit B: at a 1990s feminist conference in my area, I made a rather articulate statement during the question-and-answer session, prompting some agitated feminist organizers to subsequently approach me and ask if I represented some group. Finding me unpalatable, they ultimately begged out of the conversation by offering to send me literature and asking for my address. I consented but quipped, “As long as you don’t send a hit squad to my house.”
You guessed it. Schroederesquely, they took me seriously and said sternly, “We don’t do things like that.” Bizarre. Just bizarre.
Then I think of Charles Jenkins, an American soldier who spent 39 years in North Korean captivity. After finally returning to the US, he said about his arch-leftist captors, “[W]hen you lie they think you are telling the truth, and when you tell the truth they think you are lying. You learn real quick to say no when you mean yes, and yes when you mean no.” I guess the North Koreans are just like our leftists — only more so.
My last example concerns the nuclear-war scare of 1983. When the CIA reported that the Soviets actually thought NATO command-post exercise Able Archer 83 might be a prelude to a nuclear attack, President Ronald Reagan was shocked. Reagan’s deputy CIA director Robert Gates would later write, “Was the Soviet leadership so out of touch that they really believed a preemptive attack was a real possibility?”
Yes, they were.
They were leftists.
Of course, it’s no put-down to mention that just as the Soviets misread Washington, Reagan and, it appears, all his advisors misread the Soviets. We all fail in this regard at times, mistaking a joke for a serious comment, taking offense when none was intended or something else. Discernment is a continuum. But while some people occupy the Amazing Kreskin end of the scale, others populate the Schroeder end. And having such a person in power can mean the bitter end.
And what of Obama? Is he at all a mind-reader or just a Teleprompter reader? He misread ISIS, calling it the “JV team.” He misread the tribalistic, Muslim humans in Iraq, saying they had a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” “representative government.” He misread the Middle East in general, stating “the tide of war is receding.” As the usually sympathetic New York Times wrote about the president, “Time and again, he has expressed assessments of the world that in the harsh glare of hindsight look out of kilter with the changed reality he now confronts.”
Moreover, just last week Obama said in Estonia that an attack on that nation (alluding to Russian aggression) would be considered an attack on all of NATO and be met with the “armed forces of the United States of America.” Huh? As Pat Buchanan pointed out, such a statement about Russia’s sphere of influence is unprecedented and is something Obama’s “Cold War predecessors would have regarded as certifiable madness.” Would the president really risk nuclear war over tiny Estonia? Was it prudent to enter Vladimir Putin’s backyard and saber rattle? Was Obama wise to send the message that he’s either the world’s worst bluffer or its most insane leader?
But, again, liberals are the Braille bunch of human understanding. Just consider their prescriptions for deterring criminals, disciplining children, interpreting sexual inclinations or perceived statuses, encouraging productivity, avoiding nuclear war (unilateral disarmament), dealing with bullies in schools, thwarting school shootings (gun-free zones) or just about anything else that involves understanding man’s nature. Like old Patsy, who mistook a most comedic comment for the most serious callousness, they don’t just get others wrong — they get things completely backwards.
Why is this? Because liberals live lives of rationalization, something debating them reveals. You can make an airtight point and a leftist not only won’t cede it, he’ll disgorge a completely absurd denial of reality. Of course, that’s what a rationalization is: when you lie to yourself, bend reality for yourself. And when you deny reality habitually, year after year — refusing to see one pixel here, another there, and a thousand others in different places — you never assemble enough elements of reality to see the big picture; this is called being out of touch with reality. Yet living in a Matrix of his own design, the person doesn’t know he’s thus detached. But the consequence is that he has difficulty discerning truth; he misreads people, events, life, the Universe and everything.
What explains liberals’ propensity for rationalization? Note here that by “liberals” I mean people who are relativists, who don’t believe in Absolute Truth, because this defines liberals (generally speaking) at the deepest level: the philosophical. And while we all may rationalize, there is a difference. If a person believes in Truth, he’ll likely care about it and be less likely to deny one of its inconvenient or uncomfortable aspects. He’ll be wont to say, “Okay, I don’t like reality here, but, heck, the Truth’s the Truth; I’ll just have to man up and accept it.” He also may understand, or at least sense intuitively, that denial of Truth is a moral defect.
But the person fancying that morality is just values and values are man-made, that everything is relative, approaches things differently. You can’t be denying Truth if Truth doesn’t exist; you’re just denying a different perspective. Moreover, even in matters of outright deception, such as peddling forged documents damaging to George W. Bush, what of it? A lie can’t be any worse than the “truth” in a relativistic universe. For everything there boils down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
So what can we expect from our detached-from-reality ignorance mongers? Well, pondering this I’m reminded of a woman whose somewhat liberal husband would be namby-pamby with their son, let him take too many liberties and allow the tension to build, until he would explode and react to the boy inappropriately. That’s the danger with leftists. If anyone would get us into a really big war, it would be someone who misreads situations and other people, fails to take necessary preventive action, and then reacts rashly. It would be a liberal.
Of course, the bigger problem is the detached ignorance mongers who would elect an Obama — twice. But, hey, perhaps they can persevere if they maintain their ability to rationalize. After all, with the onset of a nuclear winter, there would be no reason to worry about global warming.