Tag Archives: Clinton

Obama’s Takeover Of The Internet Was Spear-Headed By Self-Admitted Marxists


“Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”

There is NOTHING NEUTRAL about the Net Neutrality rules being imposed by the FCC vote and ruling yesterday.  While the ignorantly gullible and emoting public gobbles up words the Oligarchs and Marxists use to sell it as ‘fairness’ and ‘cheaper’ – the actual architects and movers and shakers of the rules imposed by the FCC and FEC yesterday had completely different motives.  ‘Net Neutrality’ is just a sell word – same as the “Affordable Care Act” was used to push the complete takeover of the healthcare system via ObamaCare.

While we already have learned everything we do on the Internet is spied on by the NSA, catalogued and stored by the various Alphabets at Mordor On The Potomac, the same generation that went berserk over learning GW Bush ordered incoming international cell phone calls from overseas tapped – are jumping for joy over the FCC takeover of the internet whose rules are STILL being kept secret as I write this.  In short – they are cheering the takeover, taxation and restriction of their own playground.  Once the consequences of yesterday hit them, and broadband across the board slows to dial-up speed, who will they be directed to hate for that?  Will they demand Obama nationalize AT&T, Verizon and Comcast?  They certainly are not going to blame Obama or government. I know – blame Republicans, probably talking points are already written for that.

‘Net Neutrality’ as a term is as Orwellian as anything we have ever heard before.  The operative word of what happened yesterday is not NEUTRALITY, but NEUTRALIZE – as in to neutralize all non-‘progressive’ (i.e.: Marxist/Fascist) ideas from the internet and media.  Neutralize the average American from internet access by fees, taxes and fines upon everything they do on the internet.  Neutralize Capitalism from the internet.

Sound crazy?  Those are the words of one of the main architects of the top secret plans the Leftists strong armed the FCC to impose by fiat.  Consider it a Socialist-run purge of the internet.  Their  ultimate goal is banning and restricting content and limiting communication that poses a threat to the Ruling Class Tyrants in power and the various bogus agendas they push.  For now, it is about getting the media giants into the control of government and micromanaging how the internet itself runs and what can be charged for it so a ridiculous treasure-trove of untapped revenue can be streamed into the greedy hands of government via taxes and fees for everything that happens online.  Imagine having to pay taxes, or a ‘digital postage stamp’ on every e-mail you send and how much data you upload or download. The requirement of a digital ID before you can get online.  Those things are coming, they were made possible yesterday.  Today they set up the bureaucracy and target revenue streams.

Tomorrow, it is about silencing dissent.

Oppose the Climate Change and Global Warming hoax?  The net will be devoid of any dissent.  Anything that supports actual science instead of their agenda will be scrubbed and removed.

Support a political position or candidate that is not a Socialist/Marxist Ruling Class Oligarch?  That will fall under FEC campaign rules and the fees and fines and reporting duties are so onerous and mind boggling – the IRS scandal that targeted Conservative groups will seem like child’s play.

This people have absolutely no clue or idea what happened to them yesterday as the velvet coup marches on to impose the MarxoFascist ‘Utopia’ on a nation these evil beings seek to punish and destroy.


Comrades for Net Neutrality

The powers behind the FCC’s muscling of the Internet

Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet. The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body.

“Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content,” says Phil Kerpen, an anti-net-neutrality activist from the group American Commitment.

The courts have previously ruled the FCC’s efforts to impose “net neutrality” out of bounds, so the battle isn’t over. But for now, the FCC has granted itself enormous power to micromanage the largely unrestrained Internet.

Back in the 1990s, the Clinton administration teamed up with Internet pioneers to promote a hands-off approach to the new industry and keep it free from discriminatory taxation. Many still prefer that policy. Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab and the charity One Laptop Per Child, says that net neutrality “doesn’t make sense” because “the truth is, not all bits [of data] are created equal.”

Will Marshall, head of the Progressive Policy Institute (which was once a favorite think tank of Clinton Democrats), issued a statement that net neutrality “endorses a backward-looking policy that would apply the brakes to the most dynamic sector of America’s economy.”

But such voices have been drowned out by left-wing activists who want to manage the Internet to achieve their political objectives. The most influential of these congregate around the deceptively named Free Press, a liberal lobby co-founded in 2002 by Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor.

His goals have always been clear. “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.” When I interviewed him in 2010, he admitted he is a socialist and said he was “hesitant to say I’m not a Marxist.”

In essence, what McChesney and his followers want is an Unfree Press — a media world that promotes their values. “To cast things in neo-Marxist terms that they could appreciate, they want to take control of the information means of production,” says Adam Therier of the blog TechLiberation.

Certainly McChesney seems blind to the dangers of media control on the left. In 2007, he co-authored a remarkable survey of the media under Hugo Chávez’s already clearly thuggish regime in Venezuela: “Aggressive, unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.”

Despite his astonishingly radical goals, McChesney’s Free Press group was able to leverage foundation cash and academic “research” into an influential force behind net neutrality. Julius Genachowski, President Obama’s first FCC chairman, hired Free Press’s Jen Howard as his press secretary. The FCC’s chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, has co-authored a Free Press report demanding regulation of political talk radio. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan cited research from Free Press and other left-wing groups backing net neutrality more than 50 times.

The battle for control of the Internet isn’t over. Over two-thirds of the House and Senate are on record as opposing FCC regulation of the Internet, and a new president could change the policy overnight in 2017 even if the courts don’t block it.

But for now, the “media reform” movement led by McChesney and his allies can claim bragging rights for their Saul Alinsky–style outflanking maneuver on Internet regulation. They financed the research behind the idea, installed their political allies in power, got the government to consider them experts on the issues they cared deeply about, and finally ran roughshod over both Congress and an initially reluctant FCC chairman. Conservatives should study how the Left won on this issue even as they acknowledge and fight the illegitimacy of many of the results.


Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Vets Storm Memorial After Obama Orders It Closed – Obama Orders Memorials Re-Barricaded, Will Arrest ‘Violators’

Shut down memorial

WWII Veterans will not take Obama-imposed blockade lying down on a memorial paid for almost entirely by PRIVATE donations.  Park Service says they are ordered to arrest any further intrusions past barricades.

They were the Greatest Generation, now in their late 80’s and 90’s – going on Honor Flights to see the memorial erected in their honor by almost entirely private donations for what they achieved.  Their memorial is an open-air tribute requiring no staff, same as the Lincoln Memorial.  But His Heinous – Emperor Obama, the Petulant Man-Child, tossed his tantrum over the government shut-down – and ON HIS ORDERS, BARRICADED AND SHUT DOWN THOSE MEMORIALS.  Stephen Hayes reports via twitchy:

“At the WWII Memorial, Carol Johnson w/the Park Service says they were told to close the site by White House’s Office of Management & Budget.”


That means that the order to barricade and close the open-air memorials came from either Obama himself or his staff (Valerie Jarrett anyone?)

Not even during the Clinton-era shutdown were the open air memorials barricaded and shut down.


However, Honor Flight veterans who stormed the beaches at Normandy and slugged it out with the Imperial Japanese in the Pacific were not going to allow Fuhrer-Emperor Obama to stand in their way. They stormed past the barricades and went into the memorial erected in their honor, Obama’s petulance be damned.

Storming2Storming memorial

World War II veterans storm DC memorial, shutdown be damned

Hilarity ensued in Washington on Tuesday when busloads of World War II veterans on an Honor Flight to visit the World War II Memorial were halted at BARRY-CADES closing it off due to the shutdown.

Having traveled so far to be turned back because of Obama’s petulance, the veterans—many of them in wheelchairs—stormed right past the gates, “pushing them over” to get inside the memorial before a Parks Department employee (still on the job somehow) relented and removed them, allowing everyone inside rather than suffer very bad ‘optics’.


It is amazing that while there is a so-called government shut-down – that the Federal Government has money to pay for personnel, file, barricades, fencing and security to blockade open-air memorials in order to keep the American people OUT of their own memorials and to stand guard when under normal conditions, they are not present.

EssentialEmployeesSince Tuesday’s ‘breach’ of Obama’s ordered barricade of the nation’s memorials – Obama has ordered a redoubling of barricades and more security to keep Americans out – with orders to arrest anyone breaching those barricades.  Welcome to Obama’s Amerika.

The Obama administration is adding more barricades at the World War Two Memorial in Washington, D.C. this morning, according to reporters on the scene.

The reinforcements are being put in place apparently to prevent a repeat of yesterday when WWII veterans aided by several Republican Congressmen pushed aside barricades to visit their memorial.

Buzzfeed got no response from the White House last night when queried about the administration closing the memorial to veterans.

A report last night claimed that the Park Service would arrest veterans who attempt to visit the WWII Memorial.

By Wednesday morning, there is apparently enough money and manpower to erect a fortress of gates and wire around the open-air memorials and to station police to stand guard 24/7.


LincolnMemorial barricade

Guarding Lincoln


Today, there is more security and more guards at the Lincoln Memorial than at our Annex in Benghazi in 2012 when Al Qaeda attacked and killed 4 Americans including our ambassador.

The excuse the park Service offers is feeble, maintaining is that the government requires people on duty know CPR.  A bogus excuse. The Memorial is open-air and open to the public 24 hours a day, even though previously staffed only part of the day.  Most veterans are aided by family and other staff attending to medical needs.

His Heinous Obama is angry at the violation of his Barry-Cades and is sending in reinforcements to ensure that the memorials remained off-limits to Americans.  In reply, Americans and Veterans are showing up in greater numbers to the memorial today.  Another Honor Flight of vets is scheduled for next Wednesday, and a showdown between an army of Fed employees and veterans who kicked Hitler and Tojo’s asses may be in store.  The vets and their supports vow to up the ante of their protest:

Military veterans are declaring war on the government shutdown.

After a group of veterans broke down the barricades at the national World War II Memorial Tuesday afternoon, organizers of one Hero Flight Network group told BuzzFeed it wasn’t the last Washington would hear from them. Veterans are plotting another protest at the same place Wednesday, and expressed interest in staging similar events at sites across the nation’s capital, including the Lincoln Memorial — an act of civil disobedience that would likely pour fuel on the already highly flammable politics of the government shutdown.

“We have people here that are 80 and 90 years old and they closed down all the bathrooms?” said Tony Nussbaum, a 25-year veteran of the Air Force from Iowa and a leader of the state’s Hero Flight group. “I’m about to just start pissing on the trees.”

…On Tuesday, The Daily Caller reported that a Mississippi Republican representative attempted to get a special pass for the Hero Flight veterans from the Department of the Interior but was denied. A White House official reportedly told organizers, “It’s a government shutdown, what do you expect?” when asked about opening the memorial to the veterans. The White House did not respond to BuzzFeed’s request for comment Tuesday.

Reports exist that orders have come down to arrest anyone *tresspassing* the Barry-Cades.

Park ranger will not answer questions about arresting vets, says “that is an enforcement issue.”

WWII and Lincoln Memorial Barricade Showdowns

Will aged Veterans of the Greatest Generation yet save us again from a megalomaniacal dictator and his stormtroopers?

Wednesday showcases vets stormed the memorial again and sang “Amazing Grace” around the fountain.

Wednesday Vets


Filed under Obama Marxist Tyranny

Obama and ACORN Behind Efforts That Forced Banks to Make Bad Loans That Led To Current Financial Meltdown

Video of the Affirmative Action Plan for Banks – admitted by Cuomo and Obama that the “remedy” they just passed (1998) would result in defaults but continued to charge racism and intimidate bank officers that did not grant risky loans.

Obama and his Socialist/Liberal pals all behind the trigger that set off this financial collapse.  Ultimately, they hope that by having cause this collapse – they will be elected to “change” America into something never intended: a CommuFascist nation run by Elite Socialists like Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What “Change” Is All About: Remaking America Into A Marxist State


“Everything is proceeding as I have forseen” – Emperor Palpatine, Return of the Jedi

Ever wonder what it would be like to be in the midst of a Socialist Revolution?  An upheaval that results in the people becoming canon fodder and slaves to an all-powerful Central Planning State?  Well, look around – listen to the politicians – you’re in the very midst of one!

From Frontpage Magazine.com.

Democrats’ Platform for Revolution

By John Perazzo

FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/5/2008

Americans are well acquainted with presidential candidate Barack Obama’s legendary pledges to bring “change” to America’s political and social landscape. (For example, see here and here and here.) Indeed, “Change We Can Believe In” is the slogan that adorns the homepage of his campaign website and so many of the placards displayed by the supporters who attend his speaking engagements. His Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, is also well practiced at issuing calls for change. Her “Change and Experience” ad campaign was but an outgrowth of her 1993 declaration, as First Lady, that “remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.” Most Americans are unaware, however, that when Obama and Clinton speak of “change,” they mean change in the sense that a profoundly significant, though not widely known, individual — Saul Alinsky — outlined in his writings two generations ago. 

Alinsky helped to establish the confrontational political tactics, which he termed “organizing,” that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. Both Obama and Clinton are committed disciples of Alinsky’s very specific strategies for “social change.”

Obama never met Alinsky personally; the latter died when Obama was a young boy. But Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of theGamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, “Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing.…” In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Obama and his fellow agitators made demands for many things in the Eighties, including taxpayer-funded employment-training services, playground construction, after-school programs, and asbestos removal from neighborhood apartments. Journalist and bestselling author Richard Poe writes: “In 1985 [Obama] began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network.” (In recent years, Poe notes, both of those organizations have run nationwide voter-mobilization drives marred by allegations of fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging, voter intimidation, and vote-for-pay scams.) The Nation reports, “Today Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side.”

Hillary, for her part, actually got to know Alinsky personally. She was so impressed with Alinsky’s theories and tactics vis a vis social change, that during her senior year at Wellesley College she interviewed him and subsequently penned a 92-page thesis on his ideas. In the conclusion of that thesis, she wrote:

If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, [t]he result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.

During her senior year, Hillary was offered a job by Alinsky but chose instead to enroll at Yale Law School. Alinsky’s teachings, however, would remain close to her heart throughout her adult life. According to aWashington Post report, “As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Alinsky group that had offered her a job in 1968. She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate.”

Given the huge intellectual debt that both Democrat presidential candidates owe to Saul Alinsky, it is vital for all American voters to understand precisely who he was and what he taught. As you read this, you will hear in his words the echo of many familiar, outspoken leftist agitators for “change.”

Though Alinsky is generally viewed as a member of the political Left, and rightfully so, his legacy is more methodological than ideological. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power…
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution”—a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure.

The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted—a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse—to be followed by the erection of an entirely new and different system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. 

As Alinsky put it: “A reformation means that the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.”[1]

“[W]e are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world…This means revolution.”[2]

To counter that materialism, Alinsky favored a socialist alternative. He characterized his noble radical (read: “revolutionary”) as a social reformer who “places human rights far above property rights”; who favors “universal, free public education”; who “insists on full employment for economic security” but stipulates also that people’s tasks should “be such as to satisfy the creative desires within all men”; who “will fight conservatives” everywhere; and who “will fight privilege and power, whether it be inherited or acquired,” and “whether it be political or financial or organized creed.”[7] Alinsky maintained that radicals, finding themselves “adrift in the stormy sea of capitalism,”[8] sought “to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization.”[9] “They hope for a future,” he said, “where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.”[10] In short, they wanted socialism.

Alinsky had no patience for those he called the liberals of his day—people who were content to talk about the changes they wanted, but were unwilling to actively work for those changes. Rather, he favored “radicals” who were prepared to take bold, decisive action designed to transform society, even if that transformation could be achieved only slowly and incrementally. Wrote Alinsky:

Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted except through power…Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action—by using power…Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life.[13]

If the purpose of radicalism is to bring about social transmutation, the radical must be prepared to make a persuasive case for why such change is urgently necessary. Alinsky’s conviction that American society needed a dramatic overhaul was founded on his belief that the status quo was intolerably miserable for most people. For one thing, Alinsky saw the United States as a nation rife with economic injustice. “The people of America live as they can,” he wrote. “Many of them are pent up in one-room crumbling shacks and a few live in penthouses…The Haves smell toilet water, the Have-Nots smell just plain toilet.”[14]Lamenting the “wide disparity of wealth, privilege, and opportunity” he saw in America, Alinsky impugned the country’s “materialistic values and standards.”[15] “We know that man must cease worshipping the god of gold and the monster of materialism,” he said.[16]

Having painted a verbal portrait of a thoroughly corrupt and melancholy American society, Alinsky was now prepared to argue that wholesale change of great magnitude was in order. What was needed, he said, was a revolution in whose vanguard would be radicals committed to eliminating the “fundamental causes” of the nation’s problems,[22] and not content to merely deal with those problems’ “current manifestations”[23] or “end products.”[24] The goal of the radical, he explained, must be to bring about “the destruction of the roots of all fears, frustrations, and insecurity of man, whether they be material or spiritual”;[25] to purge the land of “the vast destructive forces which pervade the entire social scene”;[26] and to eliminate “those destructive forces from which issue wars,” forces such as “economic injustice, insecurity, unequal opportunities, prejudice, bigotry, imperialism, … and other nationalistic neuroses.”[27] 

The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict”[41] and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’”[42] “The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”;[43] i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision. 

But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out”[44]precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst.[45] In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.”[46] Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president. 

Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.”[47] He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”[48]

Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People’s Organization was vast and unbridgeable. “Before men can act,” he said, “an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.”[51] Alinsky advised this course of action even though he well understood that the organizer “knows that when the time comes for negotiations it is really only a 10 percent difference.”[52] But in Alinsky’s brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying).[53] 

Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky’s strategic calculus: “The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”[54] “The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action,” Alinsky added. “He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”[55]For Alinsky, all morality was relative: “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.”[56]

Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the “devil” is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to “crush the opposition,” bit by bit.[57] “A People’s Organization is dedicated to eternal war,” said Alinsky. “… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death.”[58]

Alinsky warned the organizer to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might unexpectedly offer him “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’”[59] Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People’s Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People’s Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end…

…Though Alinsky died in 1972, his legacy has lived on as a staple of leftist method, a veritable blueprint for revolution — to which both Democratic presidential candidates, who are his disciples and protégés, refer euphemistically as “change.”


Much more at link


Filed under Culture War, Politics

What Choice Do We Have?

Well, considering the fact we have a choice between two radical Marxists and one Liberal Democrat with a temper problem to choose for President – I’d say this picture sums it all up:


Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Presidential Candidates Reveal That America Has Been Castrated


I cannot bear to watch the insane circus of this political season any longer. After the lunacy of a primary turned completely on it’s head whereby Democrats and Independents with media efforts chose the GOP Establishment Candidate in John McCain; and a power mad-woman running who thought her crown was already secured and only required the ceremony of her annointing suddenly found herself being trounced by a do-nothing-empty-platitude-spouting former Muslim, now Christian Left Socialist.

Only one thing has become abundantly clear: the Elite powerbrokers of Washington have successfully, with media help yanked the country to the far Left, and America is stuck with a choice between Tweedledee, Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

In the words of Erik Rush, America has been officially castrated, and it certainly appears he is correct.

A Castrated Nation

By Erik Rush

If there was ever an election cycle in which the issues (at this juncture, really weighty ones) took a back seat to pomp and circumstance – or, if you prefer, hype and flatulence – this one is definitely it.

With the exception of half a handful of worthwhile individuals who were destined to be ignored by the public (for reasons of lack of profile), their party’s elite (for reasons rooted in fear and weakness), and the media (for obvious reasons), the choices have been ghastly right from the start.

An earthshaking event (like Bobby Kennedy’s assassination during the 1968 Presidential campaign) notwithstanding, one of three individuals (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain) will be inaugurated as President of the United States next January. To the majority of American voters (I’ve not yet gotten a chance to speak with all of them as yet), this may appear to be a minimally consequential prospect, but to conservatives it is of grave concern; to some, it ranges from sick-making to terrifying.

In a sense, there are some parallels between this election cycle and the one of 1992. There is a sitting Republican president with whom both Republicans and Democrats are disenchanted; despite added confusion due to the media fueling the process with hype, as a result, many Americans appear to desire some unformulated, undefined, and nebulous “change” which no one seems to be able to qualify. Like many issues that are usually top-of-mind during election cycles, as with 1992, they are taking a back seat to this “grass is greener” passion.

Foreign Policy and the War on Terror
It is difficult to argue that Democrat administrations have done anything but weaken America’s position in the global theater since the Lyndon Johnson administration. The farther left the party has moved, the more inclined it has been to indulge in weak diplomacy as it caves in to capricious “allies,” domestic anti-Americanism and the infantile globalist visions of the far left. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected, there is no doubt that this will continue. Indeed, a case could be made that Obama might well be sympathetic to some of our more fanatical enemies at home and abroad, given his voting record in the Senate and (widely unreported) personal philosophy.

This area, in my view, is one of the scant few territories held by Republican John McCain. It is generally believed by conservatives that while his administration may be as weak as a Democrat’s in general, it is unlikely that he will minimize the threat of Islamic fascists or be slow to act with military might when necessary given his experience in the military and in government.

Our Border with Mexico
We’re doomed. The Democrat party has proven that it advocates unfettered immigration from third world countries, legal or illegal, operating on the premise that these groups will eventually become Democrat voters, particularly if they can be kept in a state of perceived disenfranchisement long enough for them to buy into anti-Republican propaganda.

“SACRAMENTO, California – Mexican President Felipe Calderon acknowledged tensions between the U.S. and Mexico over illegal immigration but said Wednesday both countries have an interest in ensuring their citizens can cross the border legally and safely.

‘I know that immigration is a controversial issue today in this great nation. But I strongly believe that Mexican and Mexican-American workers are a large reason for the dynamic economy of California,’ Calderon said in prepared remarks.

“‘Our nations will never find prosperity by closing their doors.’” – Calderon says U.S., Mexico must keep doors open, Associated Press, February 13, 2008

Mexican workers a large reason for the dynamic economy of California? How Orwellian can one get? Has it been discovered that the devastation of California’s economy was actually due to state workers pilfering office supplies?

Wearing an expensive suit and an oily smirk, Calderon, surrounded by fawning members of the California legislature – this state which has been virtually decimated economically by the ravages of illegal immigration from Mexico and the ultra-liberal tolerance thereof – had the (now commonly disregarded) audacity to notify the lawmakers, and by extension America, how we ought handle our southern border issues.

Why he wasn’t run out of town naked on a splintered rail is testimony to an absence of the proverbial key reproductive organs on America’s part.

John McCain, as well as being possibly the most liberal Republican in the Senate, has done nothing as border state senator to ameliorate the burden caused by illegal immigration in Arizona. The entire border has become like a demilitarized zone (an oxymoron used widely during the Vietnam War), and the far left press disregards same. Like Bush, McCain can likely be counted on to tolerate illegal immigration and our incremental move toward a North American Union. American business profits, Mexican elites profit, drug traffickers profit, and politicians profit. Where’s the incentive for change?

Social Issues and The Culture War
This is an area that was even of concern to Democrat lawmakers during the Reagan and Bush The Elder presidencies, but which was put on the back burner until long after the 1992 election. At the time, the effect of the media and an unrestrained entertainment industry threatened to seduce American youth into lifestyles of gratuitous rebelliousness, self-destruction, and debauchery – sort of where many reside now. In fact, if you recall, Al Gore’s wife Tipper and other prominent Democrats were at the forefront of the push for Senate hearings and warning labels for recorded media (records and CD) during the ‘Nineties.

Then we got Bill Clinton, whom many agree fast-tracked the “modern America as the second Rome falling” phenomenon. Despite unpopular gay rights initiatives as regards the military, Bill was as libertine as they get, Captain Kirk on Viagra. This set the stage for augmented acceptance of culturally-destructive practices and emboldened gay rights activists.

McCain is a populist; that’s one of his chief problems with conservatives. He claims to be for overturning Roe v. Wade, but probably feels relatively secure that it won’t be overturned despite any efforts he may exercise. He can always say he was for overturning it, as did Bush. As far as moral issues go, the man who brought us McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy may bring us (though he’s President), a version of McCain-(Barney) Frank, some bipartisan legislation that inches us closer to a federal amendment protecting gay “marriage.”

As I have indicated before – and it appears that this will be even moreso the case no matter who is elected President in November – carefully orchestrated and massive grassroots action is the only vehicle by which Americans will be able to neutralize the designs of those in places high and low who wish to preserve the beltway status quo, allowing our slide toward global disenfranchisement, socialism and cultural putrefaction to continue.

Whether the Republican Party pulls itself together within the next few years or continues to lie in the corner mumbling incoherently and expectorating on itself like someone’s junkie brother-in-law must become immaterial. Whoever is elected president, this era of grassroots activism must be inaugurated. This imperative ought to become apparent to most American voters before 2008 is out.

My estimation is that the GOP has chosen the path of the WHIGS.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Is It Time To Sing The “Ding Dong” Song Yet?


Given the latest Rasmussen poll results for New Hampshire, and Hillary Clinton’s falling poll results to Obama and Edwards since her big loss in Iowa last week, some are calling her campaign finished and “near melting”.

I just thought the pictures were hilarious and speak to the current poltical situation she finds herself in, as the Democrats are in a mad race to see who can out-Marxist the others in the shred and tear fight to become the Great And Powerful Government Oz to control everyone’s lives.

I wouldn’t count Hillary out of the race just yet. The Clinton Mean Machine is probably just getting cranked up, and all of the rumours of her campaign having nasty “information” to smear Obama with will be dumped pretty soon by her flying blog monkeys with no “official” ties to Hillary’s campaign.

Like the rest of the Democrat ‘Undead’, don’t count out what driven ambition for power can unleash. Hillary has crafts at her disposal gifted to her by that Great Political Oz; The Slick. Her Thighness has been known to kill frontrunners and raise the politically dead from the grave of defeat, so unless Obama can bring her broom to the seat of the Democrat Electorate after Super Tuesday, I would be very wary of the Castle Grande Guards she has for an army of supporters in both the media and the halls of power.

Perhaps Obama is smart enough to be carrying around of bucket of water with him.

Meanwhile, the Scarecrows and Tin men of the GOP are still fighting among themselves whether to take the yellow brick road of Isolationism, the Red Brick Road of Socialism Light, or the Road to Nowhere Fast as they argue that their map is the right map to Reagan Conservatism.

We’re definitely not in Kansas anymore Toto.


Filed under Politics

Christians Need to Exercise Discernment With Huckabee, He Is Not Much of a Conservative


Mike Huckabee disqualified himself from my ‘possibles’ list over his Baptist doctrinal slams of Mitt Romney a month ago. Since then, the meteoric rise of Huckabee in the polls was most interesting to note – considering many Christian Conservatives feel lost and abandoned by the GOP in the sea of politics.

Some Conservatives observing the Huckabee phenomenon are of the opinion that the Huckabee campaign is simply exploiting Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. They are gravitating to his campaign because he is espousing religious-sounding rhetoric that is pleasing to their ears, but they are overlooking or ignorant of the fact that some of Mike Huckabee’s ideas and support of Big Government programs are to the Left of Hillary Clinton.

Mike Huckabee is riding a populist wave, that much is certain. How long-lasting will it be?

That depends on how deep Christians will look at his record and how wisely they listen to his ideas. The Cato Institute rated Huckabee an “F” in his latest term as Governor.

There are worries that there may be some political subterfuge entering this campaign by Soros/Clinton support that seeks to divide and conquer the Republican party – pitting onse sect of Conservatives against the other.

Huckabee’s latest slam against the GOP illustrates for me that Huckabee is running against his own party, and the hordes of Christians who are rushing to his support are doing so simply because of his preaching credentials. They would do well to read this article that finds on close inspection, that Huckabee’s Theology Degree itself is dubious.

Why do I get nervous and a sick feeling in my gut when I see a picture of Mike Huckabee and Bill Clinton together?

Because I get the feeling based on my study, that they are really, one and the same – on many issues.

Huckabee Blasts Entire GOP

From TIME Magazine:

But as Huckabee now mounts his closing argument for the Iowa caucuses, he has moved full bore into the rhetoric of economic populism. “I am out to change the Republican Party. It needs changing. It needs to be inclusive of all those people across America for whom this party should stand,” he said Sunday, on CBS’s Face The Nation. On the trail, he speaks regularly of challenging the “Washington to Wall Street power axis.” He frankly acknowledges the suffering of the stagnating middle class, and even offers up government as a part of the solution. “The President ought to be aware that the people struggle,” he said in Muscatine on Friday morning. “He ought to be aware every time a decision is made — whether [or not] it’s to raise taxes — how it’s going to hurt the family out there, who can barely pay the grocery bill as it is.”

At some of these events, if you close your eyes, you would think a Democrat was speaking — Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton turned southern Baptist.

The GOP does not need “changing.” It needs reminding and it needs energy in its new leader. It needs to recommit to its traditional stand against excessive spending and the growth of government. It needs to affirm its belief in victory in the war and to the nomination and confirmation of originalist judges. It needs to endorse extension of President Bush’s tax cuts and elimination of the death tax. It needs to argue for the rights of the unborn and the protection of those least able to protect themselves.

It needs a spokesman for its beliefs and for its traditional agenda which wins when it is embraced and defended.

What the GOP definitely does not need is neopopulism, class warfare, and identity politics of the sort Mike Huckabee has been selling the last four weeks. Huckabee’s lunge left may not have been premeditated, but it clearly displayed a candidate with no anchor in the GOP’s tradition of fiscal restraint, free trade and low taxes and a very limited understanding of the world’s most dangerous forces.

Don’t be surprised if Mike Huckabee fails to finish in the top three anywhere other than Iowa. He’s a very affable, likeable fellow with a genuine commitment to the life issue, but his fractured ideology is shared by very, very few Republicans, and his understanding of the rogue states, especially Iran, is questionable. As actual voting approaches, GOP regulars have to ask themselves who can beat either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. Mike Huckabee will never rally the GOP base to his standard given his populist rhetoric –the sort of nonsense that President Bush and every GOP nominee since Reagan has blasted away at.


Filed under Politics